Division   ^S2.'2)'^b 

XS3 


Soctioa 


'h 


CRITICISM   OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT 


Criticism  of  the 
new  testament 


ST.    MARGARET'S    LECTURES 

1902 


BY 


W.  SANDAY,  D.D.  F.  H.  CHASE,  D.D. 

F.  G.  KENYON,  D.Litt.,  Ph.D.        A.  C.   HEADLAM,  B.D. 
F.  C.  BURKITT,  M.A.  J.  H.  BERNARD,  D.D. 


NEW  YORK 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

153-157  FIFTH  AVENUE 
I  902 

All  rights  reserved 


Glasgow:  printed  at  the  university  press 
by  robert  maclehose  and  co. 


Prefatory    Note 


The  condition  of  sound  interpretation  of  Scripture 
is  honest  and  thorough  criticism.  Ultimately  all  our 
theological  and  ecclesiastical  discussions  turn  on 
the  treatment  of  the  sacred  text,  and  it  is 
beyond  question  that  within  the  last  two  genera- 
tions the  traditional  treatment  has  been  to  an 
extent  which  is  difficult  to  exaggerate  disallowed. 
Much  of  our  standard  theological  literature  is 
practically  worthless  because  based  on  a  discarded 
exegesis  ;  and  it  is  humiliating  to  reflect  that 
much  current  preaching  and  teaching  of  religion 
is  only  tolerated  because  the  religious  public  remains 
extraordinarily  ignorant  of  the  assured  results  ot 
Biblical  Science.  In  the  prevailing  ignorance  un- 
warrantable fears  invade  the  general  mind,  and  create 
a  panic-stricken  prejudice  against  critical  studies, 
eminently  favourable  to  that  resuscitation  of  fanaticism 
which  is  one  of  the  most  curious  and  melancholy 
characteristics  of  our  time.     It  becomes  therefore  a 


VI  PREFATORY    NOTE 

matter  of  no  slight  importance  that  sound  knowledge 
as  to  the  methods  and  conclusions  of  criticism  should 
be  disseminated  as  widely  as  possible  among  the 
people.  The  lectures  here  printed  were  designed  as 
a  first  step  in  a  serious  effort  to  awaken  popular 
interest  in  Biblical  Science,  and  to  set  out  clearly  the 
broad  principles  on  which  that  criticism  proceeds.  Of 
course  only  the  fringe  of  the  subject  is  here  touched. 
The  names  of  the  lecturers  will  sufficiently  commend 
their  work  to  all  who  have  any  acquaintance  with  the 
world  of  contemporary  scholarship.  Without  ex- 
ception they  speak  with  the  authority  of  recognized 
experts.  I  may  be  permitted  to  set  on  record  my 
cordial  thanks  for  the  ready  kindness  with  which  they 
consented  to  co-operate  with  me  in  an  undertaking, 
which,  apart  from  them,  I  should  have  been  power- 
less to  carry  through.  The  famous  and  beautiful 
Church  of  S.  Margaret,  Westminster,  is,  in  many 
notable  respects,  well  suited  to  be  a  teaching-centre 
of  that  New  Learning,  which  is  slowly  but  surely 
revolutionizing  Christian  thought.  I  have  always  felt 
that  the  critical  results,  secured  by  the  labours  of 
scholars  in  the  Universities,  ought  to  be  more  directly, 
and,  so  to  speak,  naturally  communicated  to  the 
Church  at  large,  and  given  their  proper  effect  in  the 
current  doctrine  and  worship.  There  are  many 
educated  laymen,  who  have  no  time  for  reading 
elaborate  works,  and  whose  lack  of  acquaintance  with 


PREFATORY    NOTE  Vll 

the  technicalities  of  criticism  makes  such  works  un- 
interesting and  even  unintelligible,  who  yet  are  keenly 
interested  in  the  honest  treatment  of  Scripture,  and 
fully  able  to  appreciate  critical  methods  and  results 
when  these  are  set  before  them  with  reasonable 
lucidity.  No  worse  disaster  to  religion  could  well  be 
imagined  than  the  divorce  of  critical  scholarship  from 
average  belief.  Criticism  must  not  be  allowed  to 
take  an  esoteric  character,  but,  at  all  hazards,  must 
be  held  closely  to  the  current  teaching  of  the  Church. 
These  lectures  will  have  justified  their  publication, 
and  answered  to  the  purpose  with  which  they  were 
originally  planned,  if,  in  however  small  a  measure, 
they  contribute  to  this  end. 

It  is  requisite  that  I  should  state  clearly  that  every 
lecturer's  responsibility  is  strictly  confined  to  his  own 
contribution,  and  that  I  myself  must  answer  for  the 
plan  of  the  lectures  and  the  choice  of  subjects  and 
lecturers. 

H.  Hensley  Henson. 


Westminster,  August,   1902. 


Contents 

PAGE 

Introductory  Lecture  :  The  Criticism  of  the 

New  Testament,         _         _         -         -         -         i 

By  Professor  W.  Sanday,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Christ 
Church,  Oxford ;  Lady  Margaret  Professor 
of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Oxford. 

Manuscripts,      -         -         -        -        -        -         -31 

By  F.  G.  Kenyon,  D.Litt.,  Ph.D.,  Assistant 
Keeper  of  MSS.,  British  Museum. 

The  Ancient  Versions  of  the  New  Testament,       68 
By  F.  C.   BuRKiTT,  M.A.,  Trin.  Coll.,  Camb. 

The    History    of     the    Canon    of    the    New 

Testament,  --__._       g6 

By  Professor  F.  H.  Chase,  D.D.,  President  of 
Queen's  College,  Cambridge. 

The  Dates  of  the  New  Testament  Books,     -     145 

By  Rev.  A.  C.  Headlam,  B.D.,  Rector  of 
Welwyn. 

The    Historical    Value    of    the  Acts    of   the 

Apostles,      ----___     208 

By  J.  H.  Bernard,  D.D.,  Trinity  College, 
Dublin,  Dean  of  St.  Patrick's  Cathedral, 
Dublin. 


The 
Criticism    of.  the   New   Testament 


The  Criticism  of  any  work  of  antiquity  has  two 
branches,  which  are  commonly  distinguished  as  the 
Lower  Criticism  and  the  Higher. 

The  Lower  Criticism  deals  with  the  smaller 
questions  of  words  and  text.  Its  problem  is  to 
determine  as  nearly  as  may  be  what  the  author 
really  wrote. 

The  Higher  Criticism  deals  with  the  larger 
questions  of  authorship,  date,  sources,  composition, 
literary  and  historical  character.  Its  problem  is  to 
set  the  writing  in  its  place  among  other  writings  ; 
to  determine  where  it  comes  in  place  and  time  and 
what  are  its  relations,  internal  and  external  :  I  mean 
what  are  the  relations  of  the  parts  that  compose  it 
to  the  whole,  and  what  are  the  relations  both  of  the 
parts  and  of  the  whole  to  the  surrounding  literature 
and  history,  i.e.  broadly  to  the  intellectual,  and  in 


2  THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the    case    of  the    N.T.,  to    the   religious  conditions 
of  the  time. 

These  two  groups  of  questions  mark  respectively 
the  spheres  of  the  Lower  and  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 

The  names  are  not  altogether  fortunate.  They 
have  lent  themselves  to  a  rather  natural  misuse  and 
misunderstanding. 

It  is  obvious  to  take  the  Lower  Criticism  as  mean- 
ing the  inferior,  and  the  Higher  as  meaning  the 
superior  branch  of  the  science.  The  Lower  Criti- 
cism is  apt  to  seem  a  work  of  drudgery.  And  it 
is  possible  to  discern  sometimes  in  the  Higher 
Critic  just  a  shade  of  self-complacency,  as  though 
he  were  in  possession  of  a  mystery  not  to  be  shared 
with  the  profane  crowd.  And  where  the  critic 
does  not  make  this  assumption  for  himself  the 
outside  world  is  apt  to  make  it  for  him.  It  is 
better  to  dismiss  any  such  associations  as  these, 
and  to  treat  the  two  departments  as  being  what 
they  are,  simply  two  branches  of  one  science  that 
come  into  the  day's  work  each  in  its  turn. 

My  duty  on  the  present  occasion  is,  not  to  go  into 
any  details,  which  will  be  dealt  with  by  my  successors, 
but  to  describe  to  you  as  shortly  and  as  broadly 
as  I  can  the  main  problems  and  the  present  position, 
first  of  the  Lower  and  then  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
of  the  New  Testament. 


THE    TEXT    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT  3 

It  is  well  at  the  outset  that  you  should  realize 
the  extraordinary  intricacy  and  subtlety  of  the 
questions  arising  under  each  of  these  heads,  but 
especially  under  the  first. 

No  other  book  comes  anywhere  near  the  N.T. 
in  the  extent,  the  variety,  and  the  excellence  of 
the  evidence  of  its  text. 

The  Greek  MSS.  alone  are  said  to  number  some 
three  thousand.  Some  of  these  go  back  to  the 
fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  centuries  of  our  era  :  one 
recently-discovered  fragment  is  said  to  be  even  as 
old  as  the  third. 

Then  there  is  a  series  of  very  ancient  and 
important  versions,  each  with  a  number,  and  some 
with  a  very  great   number  of  MSS.   of  its   own. 

Besides  these,  there  is  the  almost  inexhaustible 
field  of  Patristic  quotations  in  Greek  and  Latin 
which  render  valuable  aid  in  determining   the  text. 

Two  ancient  authors.  Homer  and  Virgil,  have 
MSS.  (in  the  first  case  only  fragments)  as  old, 
or  even  older  than  the  MSS.  of  the  N.T.  And 
for  these  poems,  quotations,  and  the  writings  of 
early  grammarians  supply  material  of  value.  But 
the  limits  of  variation  in  verse  are  less  than  those 
in  prose  ;  and  the  N.T.,  from  the  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances of  its  early  transmission,  is  exceptional 
among  prose  writings.  The  text  of  Virgil  has 
been    well   preserved,  and  presents  few  difficulties  ; 


4  THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

while   the  chief  of  those  which   beset   the   text  of 
Homer  go  back  behind  the  MS.  tradition. 

The  real  problem  of  the  text  of  the  N.T.  has 
a  parallel  only  in  the  case  of  the  O.T.,  and  that  is 
in  some  important  respects  different. 

It  has  come  to  be  understood  that  the  only  way 
of  approaching  a  problem  of  this  magnitude  and 
complexity  is  by  first  seeking  to  recover  the  history 
of  the  text  that  has  passed  through  so  many  vicis- 
situdes. For  this  purpose  direct  historical  state- 
ments help  us  but  little,  and  we  are  thrown  back 
upon  critical  analysis — a  process  which  is  itself 
subtle  and  complex  in  proportion  to  the  extent 
of  the  field  which  it  covers  and  the  multitude  of 
documents  which  it  includes. 

The  first  writers  to  grapple  with  this  problem 
of  recovering  the  history  of  the  N.T.  text  at  close 
quarters  and  in  its  full  extent  were  the  two 
Cambridge  scholars,  Westcott  and  Hort.  Of 
course  they  had  predecessors,  more  particularly 
Griesbach  and  Lachmann  ;  and  the  materials  on  which 
they  worked  were  contributed  mainly  by  others 
(especially  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles).  But  no 
one  before  them  had  confronted  the  problem  with 
the  same  penetration  and  breadth  of  view.  The 
two  volumes  of  introduction  published  in  the  same 
year  as  the  Revised  Version  (1881)  were  an  heroic 
achievement,    the   greatest    single    achievement    that 


WESTCOTT    AND    HORT*S    THEORY  5 

English  theological  science  has  to  show  in  the 
century  now  past.  It  was  a  complete  science  in 
itself,  built  up  from  the  very  foundation.  Ten 
years  ago  the  text  and  system  of  Westcott  and 
Hort  seemed  to  be  in  full  possession  of  the  field. 
It  had  of  course  opponents,  but  no  serious  rivals. 
To-day  the  situation  is  different.  Still  we  may 
say  that  there  is  no  fully  elaborated  system  to 
compare  with  theirs  ;  but  important  discoveries 
have  been  made  which  are  thought  in  some  quarters, 
and  those  not  the  least  scientific,  to  affect  the 
balance  of  the  evidence  as  they  had  left  it.  There 
is  a  spirit  of  enterprise  and  experiment  abroad, 
which  has  nowhere  as  yet  attained  mature  results, 
but  which  is  actively  at  work,  and  the  success  of 
which  remains  to  be  seen. 

Westcott  and  Hort  had  made  it  clear  that  the 
two  oldest  families  of  texts  are  that  which  they 
called  Neutral  and  that  which  they  called  Western. 
The  Neutral  is  in  the  main  the  text  of  the  two 
oldest  (i.e.  fourth  century)  MSS.,  the  Vatican  and 
the  Sinaitic.  The  Western  is  the  text  mainly 
represented  by  the  Latin  Version,  but  really 
diffused  throughout  the  Christian  world. 

It  is  to  this  latter  type  of  text  that  recent 
discoveries  have  made  the  most  marked  additions. 
The  Sinai  Syriac,  brought  to  light  by  Mrs.  Lewis 
and  Mrs.  Gibson,  is  a  text  of  first-rate  importance. 


6  THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

It  has  Stimulated  the  hope  that  a  comparison  of 
the  oldest  forms  of  the  Syriac  Version  with  the 
oldest  forms  of  the  Latin  may  reveal  a  text 
worthy  to  be  put  in  competition  with  that  of  the 
famous  Greek  uncials. 

It  is  in  this  shape  that  I  should  like  to  state 
the  problem,  as  it  appears  to  me  to  show  the 
greatest  promise.  An  accomplished  classical  scholar, 
Dr.  Blass  of  Jena,  has  worked  out  a  theory  with 
much  ingenuity,  which,  however,  I  do  not  think 
will  permanently  hold  its  ground.  He  would 
make  the  two  competing  texts  in  the  most  con- 
spicuous instances  represent  different  editions,  both 
proceeding  from  the  hands  of  the  original  author. 
It  is  true  that  we  can  trace  up  the  types  nearly 
to  the  time  when  the  writings  were  composed  ; 
but  there  is  still  a  gap  to  be  bridged,  and  Dr. 
Blass'  methods  of  reconstructing  his  text  seem  to 
me  open  to  some  exception.  My  successors  per- 
haps will  treat  of  these  issues  more  in  detail. 

The  most  interesting  textual  questions  are  con- 
cerned with  the  Gospels  and  Acts.  Questions  of 
a  similar  kind  arise  specially  in  connection  with 
the  Pauline  Epistles  ;  but  here  they  are  less 
important. 

We  may  congratulate  ourselves  on  the  appear- 
ance within  the  last  few  weeks  of  a  Handbook  to 
the    Textual   Crnicism    of  New    Testament^    which    is 


THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM 


quite  a  model  of  its  kind.  Not  only  does  the 
writer,  Mr.  F.  G.  Kenyon,  of  the  British  Museum, 
give  an  account  of  the  materials  of  Textual  Criticism, 
which  is  remarkably  full,  accurate,  and  readable, 
but  his  whole  attitude  towards  the  principles  and 
methods  of  the  science  is,  I  believe,  the  very 
best  possible.  Mr.  Kenyon's  book  brings  English 
scholarship  once  more  to  the  front  in  this  branch 
of  the  subject.^ 

For  the  general  public  the  questions  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  must  have  a  greater  interest  than 
those  of  the  Lower.  They  are  less  technical  and 
they  touch  points  of  greater  moment.  For  what- 
ever the  results  of  the  Lower  Criticism  may  be, 
they  are  not  likely  to  touch  anything  that  is  vital. 
Only  a  small  proportion  of  the  various  readings 
that  come  in  question  affect  in  any  degree  signifi- 
cant points  of  doctrine  or  of  practice. 

But,  when  we  pass  over  to  the  Higher  Criticism, 
the  case  is  altered.  Here  far  larger  interests  are 
at  stake.  Questions  of  date  and  authorship  that 
might  be  indifferent  in  themselves  become  serious 
through  the  facts  which  depend  upon  them.  We 
say  that  Christianity  is  a  historical  religion.      That 


•  ^  Other  books  that  may  be  recommended  are  Nestles's  Intro- 
duction to  the  Textual  Criticism  of  N.T.  (E.  T.,  1901),  the  new 
edition  of  Mr.  Hammond's  Outlines  (1902),  and  a  useful  little 
Primer  by  Mr.  K.  Lake  (1900). 


8  THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

means  that  it  rests,  to  a  large  extent,  on  historical 
evidence  ;  and  it  is  the  function  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  to  determine  the  exact  nature  and  weight 
of  that  evidence. 

For  this  reason,  the  process  is  felt  to  be  one  of 
no  light  responsibility.  There  is  no  other  field  in 
which  hasty  theories  or  conclusions  are  more  to  be 
deprecated.  The  unsettling  effect  of  such  theories 
is  often  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  solidity  of  the 
grounds  on  which  they  are  based. 

It  should  be  said  frankly  that  those  who  are 
engaged  upon  the  criticism  of  the  N.T.  in  this 
country  are  agreed  in  the  principle  that  it  must 
be  approached  "like  any  other  book."  Their 
position  is,  that  if  they  would  discover  in  what  the 
N.T.  differs  from  other  books  they  must  begin  by 
making  no  exceptions,  but  applying  to  it  the  same 
methods  that  they  would  apply  to  them. 

Sometimes  English  critics  are  taunted  with  not 
doing:  this.  But  the  taunt  is  not  well  founded. 
From  a  rather  wide  acquaintance  with  those  who  are 
employed  in  this  work,  I  can  take  it  upon  myself 
to  say  that  they  have  an  absolutely  sincere  and 
honest  intention  to  look  the  facts  in  the  face  as 
they  are.  If  they  can  be  shown  to  depart  from 
this  principle,  they  would  be  the  first  to  acknow- 
ledge their  fault. 

There    are,    however,   just   two  reservations   that 


CHRISTIAN    TRADITION 


they  think  it  right  to  make.  To  one  of  these  I 
have  already  alluded,  viz.,  that,  in  view  of  the 
importance  of  the  subject,  they  think  it  specially 
incumbent  upon  them  to  proceed  with  great  care 
and  caution,  embracing,  as  far  as  they  can,  all  the 
facts,  and  rigorously  testing  each  step  before  they 
go  on  to  another. 

And  the  other  reservation  is,  that,  if  they  make 
no  assumptions  in  favour  of  the  Christian  tradition, 
they  also  refuse  to  make  any  assumptions  against 
it.  In  other  words,  they  refuse  to  put  a  docu- 
ment out  of  court  simply  because  it  contains  the 
miraculous.  As  this  is  the  very  element  that  they 
wish  to  probe  to  the  bottom,  and  to  discover  its 
full  significance,  they  feel  it  their  duty  not  to  pre- 
judge the  case  against  it.  There  are  abundant 
indications  of  other  kinds  by  which  they  can  test 
the  literary  relations  of  a  writing  without  reference 
to  this  question  of  the  supernatural  ;  and,  therefore, 
they  prefer  to  leave  this  till  the  last,  when  the 
strictly  literary  criteria  have  had  full  weight  allowed 
to  them.  There  is  scope  enough  in  the  N.T.  for 
the  Higher  Criticism,  properly  so  called,  going  its 
own  way,  and  following  its  own  methods  and  its 
own  laws. 

Each  section  of  the  Sacred  Volume  has  its  own 
peculiar    problems,    many    of   them    of   great    per- 


TO         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

plexity  ;  so  that,  in  spite  of  the  immense  labour 
expended  upon  them,  there  are  still  many  on 
which  there  is  not  as  yet  any  clear  agreement. 

I  will  go  rapidly  through  the  N.T.  section  by 
section,  trying  to  show  what  are  the  main  issues, 
and  how  they  arise,  endeavouring  also  to  give  you 
some  idea  of  their  present  position. 

It  should  be  distinctly  understood  that  the 
questions  raised — at  least  those  on  which  I  shall 
touch — are  real  questions,  and  are  not  wantonly 
invented.  They  demand  an  answer  ;  and  criticism 
is  doing  its  best  to  answer  them.  For  this  it  should 
not  be  condemned,  even  though  some  of  the 
hypotheses  employed  should  seem  far-fetched  and 
complicated.  Complex  facts  require  what  will  seem 
to  be  complicated  hypotheses.  And  although  the 
effort  is  always  after  simplicity,  there  are  some 
solutions  that  cannot  be  simple.  It  is  easy  to  cut 
the  knot,  but  not  so  easy  to  untie  it.  Much 
patience  therefore  is  needed — patience  on  the  part 
of  the  critic  and  patience  also  on  the  part  of  the 
public  that  judges  of  his  criticism. 

That  which  makes  the  first  three  Gospels  stand 
out  as  a  group  unique  in  literature  is  the  extra- 
ordinary relation  between  them  at  once  of  close 
verbal  resemblance  and  of  marked  difference.  If 
either   of  these  phenomena   stood  alone,  we  should 


THE    SYNOPTIC    PROBLEM  II 

have  no  great  difficulty.  If  we  took  the  resem- 
blances, it  would  be  easy  to  say  either  that  the 
three  Gospels  were  copied  from  or  based  freely 
upon  one  another  {e.g.  St.  Matthew  following  in 
the  steps  of  St.  Mark,  and  St.  Luke  following  upon 
St.  Matthew),  or  that  they  were  all  three  based 
upon  a  common  original.  But  then  there  come  in 
the  differences ;  and  it  is  asked  how  are  we  to 
account  for  these  .^ 

There  have  always  been  some,  but  there  are 
probably  fewer  at  this  moment  than  at  any  time 
previously,  who  have  held,  or  hold,  that  the  peculiar 
relations  in  which  the  Gospels  stand  to  one  another 
are  to  be  explained  by  oral  tradition.  They  think 
that  nothing  was  written  until  we  come  to  the 
Gospels  as  we  have  them,  but  that  the  resemblances 
are  caused  by  the  way  in  which  the  narrative  was 
committed  to  memory  and  repeated  by  the  different 
narrators  to  a  large  extent  in  the  same  words.  This 
view  had  the  high  authority  of  the  late  Bishop 
Westcott. 

It  is,  however,  held  now  quite  by  a  minority,  and 
even  a  small  minority.  Most  scholars  think  that  the 
resemblances  are  too  close  to  be  explained  in  this  way. 

The  same  large  majority  are  agreed  in  holding 
that  the  three  Gospels  are  really  based  on  a  common 
original  which  very  nearly  coincided  with  our  present 
St.  Mark. 


12         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

I  say  "  very  nearly  coincided  " — nearly  but  not 
quite.  And  in  that  distinction  lies  the  delicacy  of 
the  problem  and  the  necessity  for  theories  that  may 
seem  to  be  fine-spun. 

I  must  not  go  into  these  ;  but  speaking  broadly 
it  may  be  said  that  on  what  is  called  "  the  priority 
of  St.  Mark "  there  is  an  imposing  amount  of 
agreement  among  scholars  of  all  nationalities.  If 
any  one  wants  to  know  the  oldest  form  in  which  a 
complete  Gospel  narrative  was  drawn  up  he  has 
only  to  read  our  present  St.  Mark,  all  but  the  last 
twelve  verses,  which  have  a  history  of  their  own. 

That  is  the  first  document.  Then  there  is  also 
considerable  agreement  in  the  view  that  there  was 
a  second  primitive  document,  to  which  perhaps  only 
two  out  of  the  three  Evangelists  had  access,  but 
which  in  any  case  was  most  largely  used  in  the  First 
Gospel  and  the  Third.  This  document  would 
include  the  common  matter,  which  is  mostly  dis- 
course, in  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke. 

Taken  together  these  two  assumptions,  of  the 
priority  of  St.  Mark,  and  a  second  source  consisting 
mainly  of  discourse,  constitute  what  is  known  as 
the  Two-Document  Hypothesis. 

It  has  the  advantage  that  it  corresponds  roughly 
to  a  statement  by  a  very  early  writer  called  Papias 
in  regard  to  the  Gospels — a  statement  probably  going 
back  to  the  first  decade  of  the  second  century. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    PROBLEM  I3 

This  Two-Document  Hypothesis  is  at  the  present 
moment  more  largely  accepted  than  any  other, 
though  it  is  right  to  say  that  the  second  half  of 
the  hypothesis  is  not  quite  so  generally  accepted  as 
the  first ;  and  among  the  dissentients  are  some  whose 
opinions  deserve  attention. 

The  principal  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  second 
document  is,  that  of  the  passages  that  would  natur- 
ally be  referred  to  it  some  are  so  much  closer 
in  their  wording  than  others.  Some  sections 
of  the  common  matter  in  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Luke  are  almost  verbatim  the  same,  whereas 
others  are  widely  divergent.  It  is  not  surprising 
that  the  question  should  be  asked  how  it  is  possible 
to  refer  these  to  one  and  the  same  document  ? 
Perhaps  this  difficulty  may  be  removed  by  a  further 
hypothesis  which  is  finding  favour  in  some  quarters, 
viz.,  that  besides  the  second  document,  commonly 
called  the  Logia  or  Oracles^  St.  Luke  has  also  a 
special  document  of  his  own,  which  in  part  over- 
lapped the  Logia.  The  theory  is  that  for  some 
reason,  probably  derived  from  the  way  in  which  it 
reached  him,  St.  Luke  attached  a  special  weight  to 
this  document  and,  where  it  contained  the  same 
matter  as  the  Logia ^  preferred  its  wording.  Besides 
a  part  of  the  common  matter  in  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Luke,  this  special  source  would  include 
that    group   of  parables   in   chapters  x.-xviii.  which 


14        THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

give    such    a    distinctive    character    to    the    Third 
Gospel. 

It  may  be  said  that  average  opinion,  agreeing  in 
this  with  an  ancient  statement  in  Irenaeus,  would 
place  the  composition  of  the  first  three  Gospels 
within  the  twenty  years  60-80  a.d. 

In  regard  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  although  there 
has  been  some  approximation  between  the  opposing 
views,  and  although  even  in  their  more  extreme 
forms  these  are  not  so  widely  removed  as  they  were, 
there  is  still  a  rather  sharp  opposition. 

The  great  question  arises  from  the  comparison  of 
this  Gospel  with  the  other  three. 

Now  it  is  of  interest  to  note  that  the  ancients, 
as  well  as  the  moderns,  made  this  comparison  and 
observed  the  differences  which  it  brought  out.  I 
do  not  mean  that  they  observed  all  the  minute 
differences  of  which  we  are  conscious,  but  broadly 
speaking  they  were  aware  of  the  facts,  and  they  had 
their  own  way  of  accounting  for  them. 

According  to  them  St.  John  had  the  other  Gospels 
brought  to  him  and  approved  them,  adding  his  own 
testimony  to  their  truth  ;  but  that  he  noticed  an 
omission  of  some  things,  more  particularly  at  the 
beginning  of  our  Lord's  public  ministry.  They  said 
that,  at  the  instance  of  the  disciples  by  whom  he 
was  surrounded,  he  undertook  in  part  to  supply  this 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  I  5 

omission  and  at  the  same  time  to  write  a  Gospel 
which  should  lay  more  stress  upon  the  Divine  side 
of  the  history,  the  human  side  having  been  suf- 
ficiently treated.  As  Clement  of  Alexandria  puts 
it,  writing  about  the  year  200  a.d.  :  "Last  of  all 
John,  perceiving  that  the  bodily  [or  external]  facts 
had  been  made  plain  in  the  Gospels,  being  urged  by 
his  friends,  and  inspired  by  the  Spirit,  composed  a 
spiritual  Gospel."  ^ 

In  other  words  the  ancients  held  that  the 
deliberate  object  of  the  author  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  was  to  supplement  the  other  three. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  this  is  just  what  it  does. 
It  supplements  the  other  Gospels  both  as  to  time 
and  as  to  place.  The  ancients  noticed  that 
whereas  the  other  Gospels  began  their  main 
account  of  the  public  ministry  from  the  imprison- 
ment of  John  the  Baptist,  the  Fourth  Gospel 
records  a  number  of  events  before  John  was  cast 
into  prison.  And  again,  whereas  in  the  other 
Gospels  our  Lord's  ministry  was  almost  confined 
to  Galilee,  St.  John  alone  gives  considerable  space 
to  events  that  occurred  at  Jerusalem.  It  is 
coming  to  be  seen  that  the  events  of  the  Last 
Week  imply  that  our  Lord  did  not  then  come 
to  Jerusalem  for  the  first  time.  Both  the  enthu- 
siasm with  which  He  was  welcomed  and  the 
^  Eus.  H.E.y  vi.  xiv. 


1 6         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

animosity  against  Him  require  previous  visits 
to  account  for  them.  So  that  this  supple- 
mental matter  is  rather  in  favour  of  St.  John's 
narrative  than  in  any  way  adverse  to  it. 

But  no  doubt  the  main  point  is  that  which 
Clement  of  Alexandria  had  in  his  mind  when 
he  spoke  of  St.  John's  as  a  "  spiritual  gospel." 
This  agrees  with  what  St.  John  himself  meant 
when  he  wrote  :  "  These  [things]  are  written  that 
ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God  ;  and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life  in 
His  Name."^  It  was  his  object  to  bring  out  the 
Divine  side  of  the  history  ;  he  had  felt  the  power 
of  that  side  himself,  and  he  desired  that  others 
should  feel  it. 

All  this  we  may  distinctly  recognise.  When  it 
is  said  that  the  picture  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  is 
a  one-sided  picture,  we  admit  that  it  is.  The 
Evangelist  singles  out  one  set  of  facts  to  put 
prominently  forward.  This  is  just  the  intention 
which  Clement  ascribed  to  him.  He  saw  that 
one  side  of  things  had  been  sufficiently  narrated, 
and  he  set  himself  to  do  fuller  justice  to  the  other. 

The  picture  in  the    Fourth    Gospel  supplements 

that  in  the  other  three  ;    but  does   it  in  any  way 

contradict    it  ?       I    do    not    think    it    does.       We 

might  describe  the  teaching   of  the  Fourth   Gospel 

^John  XX.   31. 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  I7 

as  a  series  of  variations  upon  the  one  theme  which 
has  its  classical  expression  in  a  verse  of  the  Synop- 
tics. "  All  things  have  been  delivered  unto  me 
of  my  Father  :  and  no  one  knoweth  the  Son,  save 
the  Father ;  neither  doth  any  know  the  Father, 
save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son 
willeth  to  reveal  Him."^ 

St.  John  is  constantly  playing  round  and  setting 
in  new  lights  the  filial  relation  of  the  Son  to  the 
Father.  But  that  relation  is  really  the  key,  not 
to  his  Gospel  alone,  but  to  all  the  four  ;  and  in- 
deed we  may  say  not  to  the  Gospels  alone,  but 
to  the  whole  of  Christianity. 

I  doubt  if  it  would  be  easy  to  suggest  a  better 
summary  of  the  mental  attitude  of  the  author  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  than  is  contained  in  Browning's  lines  : 

"  I  never  thought  to  call  down  fire  on  such 

But  patient  stated  much  of  the  Lord's  life 

Forgotten  or  misdelivered,  and  let  it  work  : 

Since  much  that  at  the  first,  in  deed  and  word, 

Lay  simply  and  sufficiently  exposed, 

Had  grown  (or  else  my  soul  was  grown  to  match, 

Fed  through  such  years,  familiar  with  such  light, 

Guarded  and  guided  still  to  see  and  speak) 

Of  riiCW  significance  and  fresh  result  ; 

What  first  were  guessed  as  points,   I  now  knew  stars, 

And  named  them  in  the  Gospel  I  have  writ."  ^ 


1  St.  Matt.  xi.   27.  2^  Death  in  the  Desert, 


I  8         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

It  is  just  that.  The  Evangelist  had  learnt  by  re- 
flexion and  experience  that  what  he  had  recognised 
as  "  points,"  as  simple  facts,  were  really  some- 
thing more;  they  were  luminous  points,  or  "stars." 

The  Book  of  the  Acts  is  a  continuation  of  the 
Third  Gospel,  and  it  is  probable,  that  like  the 
Gospel,  it  is  composite,  or  at  least  that  to  some 
extent  older  sources,  written  or  oral,  lie  behind  it. 
Here,  however,  we  have  no  longer  the  advantage 
of  being  able  to  compare  other  texts,  and  with 
their  help  to  define  or  discriminate  these  sources. 
An  interesting  theory  has  been  put  forward,  that 
the  document  which  served  as  a  foundation  for 
the  first  twelve  chapters  originally  formed  part 
of  the  special  source  of  the  Gospel.  If  this  were 
so  it  would  not  only  be  the  oldest  bit  of  con- 
tinuous Church  History  that  we  can  trace,  but  it 
will  have  suggested  to  St.  Luke  the  idea  of 
following  up  his  first  volume  by  a  second.  Some 
attempt  has  been  made  to  test  this  theory  by  a 
careful  examination  of  the  language  of  chapters 
i.-xii.  compared  with  that  of  the  supposed  "  Special 
Source"  of  the  Gospel.  But  as  yet  the  theory  can 
hardly  be  said  to  be  either  proved  or  disproved. 

The  critical  question  that  is  most  important  for 
an  estimate  of  the  whole  book  is  that  which  is 
concerned  with  the  later  chapters. 


THE    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES  1 9 

One  of  the  first  and  most  elementary  lessons  in 
N.  T.  criticism  will  have  been  suggested  to  most 
of  us  by  what  are  called  the  "  We-passages,"  i.e. 
those  passages  in  the  later  chapters  of  the  Acts 
in  which  the  writer  speaks  in  the  first  person 
plural,  as  though  he  were  himself  included  in  the 
party  whose  travels  and  adventures  he  is  narrating. 

Was  the  author  of  the  Acts  really  himself  one 
of  these  companions  of  St.  Paul  or  is  he  incor- 
porating in  his  book  what  may  be  called  a  diary 
written  by  some  one  else  who  had  been  such  a 
companion  ^ 

English  scholars  generally  have  been  of  opinion 
that  the  first  of  these  hypotheses  explains  the  facts 
in  the  way  that  is  simplest  and  best.  In  this 
instance  the  criterion  of  language  can  be  applied 
more  effectively  than  in  the  case  of  the  earlier 
chapters.  And  I  would  commend  to  your  notice 
especially  the  severely  statistical  argument  in  Sir 
John  Hawkins'  Horae  Synopticae,  pp.  148-154, 
which  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  "  the  original 
writer  of  these  sections  was  the  same  person  as 
the  main  author  of  the  Acts  and  of  the  Third 
Gospel,  and  consequently,  that  the  date  of  those 
books  lies  within  the  lifetime  of  a  companion  of 
St.  Paul." 

In  keeping  with  this  conclusion  English  scholars 
have  also  as  a  rule  attached  a  high  degree  of  value 


20        THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

to  the  historical  narrative  of  the  Acts.  This  is 
equally  true  of  Bishop  Lightfoot,^  Professor 
Ramsay,^  Mr.  Headlam,^  Dr.  Knowling,*  and  of 
the  two  most  recent  writers,  Mr.  Rackham/  and 
Dr.  Chase.^  There  is  some  exception  in  Prof. 
P.  Gardner's  Historic  View  of  the  New  Testament ; 
but  Dr.  Gardner's  disparagement  is  only  an  echo 
of  certain  foreign  writers  and  is  not  supported  by 
argument.  There  is  more  argumentative  basis 
for  the  destructive  criticism  of  Prof.  Schmiedel  in 
Encyclopaedia  Biblica^  on  which  reference  may  be 
made  to  the  Church  ^arterly  Review  for  October, 
1901. 

The  external  evidence  for  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul  is  very  strong.  It  goes  to  show  not  only 
that  individual  epistles  existed,  but  that  the  whole 
body  of  thirteen  epistles  had  been  already  collected 
about  the  year  no  a.d.  Still,  there  is  a  real 
problem    in    connexion    with    these    epistles,    which 


^Art.  "Acts"  in   Smith's   Diet,  of  the  Bible  {tdi.  2,  1893). 

'^  St.  Paul  the  Traveller  and  the  Roman  Citizen  (London,  1895). 

3  Art.  "  Acts  "  in  Hastings'  Did.  of  the  Bible  (Edinburgh, 
1898). 

^  In  the  Expositors^  Greek  Testament^  vol.  ii.  (London,  1900). 

^  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  An  Exposition  by  R.  B.  Rackham 
(London,  1901). 

6  The  Credibility  of  the  Book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  by  F.  H. 
Chase  (London,  1902). 


ST.    PAULS    EPISTLES  21 

justifies    to    some    extent    the    questions    that    have 
been  raised. 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  fall  into  four  clearly 
marked  groups  :  (i)  A  preliminary  group  contain- 
ing I  and  2  Thessalonians ;  (2)  a  central  group, 
I  and  2  Corinthians,  Galatians,  Romans  ;  (3)  the 
Epistles  of  the  Imprisonment,  Ephesians,  Colos- 
sians,  Philippians,  Philemon  ;  (4)  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  I  and  2  Timothy,  and  Titus. 

Now  it  is  true  that  if  a  literary  critic  were  to 
compare  these  groups  together,  he  would  soon 
discover  certain  differences  between  them.  He 
would  find  in  them  differences  both  of  style  and 
of  subject  matter.  The  epistles  of  the  central 
group  have  certain  marked  characteristics.  They 
are  controversial  ;  and  the  controversies  with 
which  they  deal  are  conducted  with  great  vivacity 
of  expression,  and  with  rapid  changes  ot  tone 
and  manner.  Sharp  dialectic,  stern  denunciation, 
and  affectionate  entreaty  alternate  with  each  other 
in  rapid  succession.  The  sentences  are  frequently 
short,  and  couched  in  the  form  of  challenge. 
They  give  the  impression  of  a  temperament  keenly 
sensitive,  quickly  roused  and  as  quickly  subsiding ; 
of  great  powers  of  mind,  applied  in  the  most 
varied  directions  ;  of  profound  thoughts  combined 
with  soaring  aspirations. 

When   we  turn  to  an  epistle  like  the  Ephesians 


22         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

it  is  impossible  not  to  feel  a  difference.  The  pro- 
fundity is  there  ;  the  aspiration  is  there  ;  but  the 
controversy  seems  to  be  in  the  background.  With 
it  the  old  vivacity  appears  to  be  lost.  The 
sentences  and  paragraphs  become  longer  and  more 
involved.  The  tone  of  challenge  dies  out.  Even 
the  affectionateness  seems  buried  in  weighty  but 
almost  laboured  disquisition. 

Along  with  this  difference  of  style  the  subject 
matter  also  appears  to  change.  We  hear  less  of 
the  law,  of  circumcision,  of  Christian  liberty,  and 
the  struggles  of  the  sin-burdened  conscience.  The 
leading  thought  is  now  that  of  the  Church  as  the 
Body  of  Christ,  and  of  Christ  as  the  Head  of 
the  Church. 

Again,  when  we  pass  on  to  the  Pastoral  Epistles, 
here  too  there  appears  to  be  a  change.  The 
number  of  peculiar  words  not  used  by  St.  Paul 
elsewhere  increases ;  and  the  exposition  of  doctrine 
gives  place  to  details  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  and 
practical  organization. 

All  these  things  together  make  up  a  real  pro- 
blem at  which  students  of  more  conservative  and 
of  more  liberal  tendencies  have  worked  side  by 
side. 

It  has  been  observed  in  mitigation  of  the  apparent 
contrast — 

(i.)  That  although  there  is  a  certain  change    of 


ST.    PAUL  S    EPISTLES  23 

subject  in  the  later  letters  as  compared  with  the 
earlier,  there  is  never  any  real  inconsistency  ;  the 
germs  of  the  later  teaching  are  always  to  be 
found,  and  are  often  expressed  very  distinctly,  at 
the  earlier  stages.  The  development  can  be  shown 
to  be  easy  and  natural  ;  and  it  is  always  develop- 
ment, not  contradiction. 

(ii.)  Not  only  are  the  changes  such  as  might 
naturally  take  place  in  the  same  mind,  but  they 
are  also  such  as  would  inevitably  arise  out  of 
the  course  of  events  and  through  the  shifting  of 
circumstances.  The  great  controversy  as  to  cir- 
cumcision rapidly  reached  its  climax  and  rapidly  died 
down.  The  reconciliation  of  Jew  and  Gentile  was 
becoming  daily  an  accomplished  fact.  The  Apostle, 
sensitive  to  every  movement  within  his  little  world, 
felt  the  progress  that  v/as  being  made  and,  like 
the  statesman  that  he  was,  lost  no  time  in  taking 
advantage  of  it,  to  consolidate  the  advance  by  con- 
structive doctrine.  The  teaching  of  Ephesians  and 
Colossians  only  marks  the  phase  which  naturally 
succeeded  to  that  of  Romans  and  i  and  2  Corin- 
thians. And  in  like  manner  the  peculiarity  of 
the  Pastoral  Epistles  arose  out  of  the  situation 
to  which  they  belonged.  There  is  not  a  single 
Epistle  or  group  of  Epistles  that  is  not  connected 
by  manifold  links  of  connexion  with  those  which 
had  gone  before. 


24         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

(iii.)  In  regard  to  style  it  must  be  remembered 
that  St.  Paul  was  a  genius  of  extraordinary  ver- 
satility. The  differences  of  tone  and  structure 
between  the  Epistles  of  one  group  and  those  of 
another  is  not  greater  than  that  between  different 
portions  of  the  same  Epistle  and  of  the  same  group. 
We  must  allow  for  the  fluctuations  and  oscillations 
of  a  mind  at  once  of  remarkable  sensitiveness  and 
remarkable  range.  St.  Paul  was  a  whole  man  ;  the 
emotional  side  of  his  nature  was  as  strong  and  as 
active  as  the  intellectual,  and  the  spiritual  dominated 
over  both. 

(iv.)  St.  Paul  lived  intensely,  but  more  intensely 
at  some  times  than  at  others.  A  nature  like  his 
implies  a  highly  strung  nervous  organization.  Such 
a  temperament  has  its  ebbs  and  its  flows,  to  which 
physical  conditions  would  contribute  not  a  little.  It 
would  be  one  thing  to  be  moving  about  freely  from 
place  to  place,  in  daily  intercourse  with  the  brethren, 
hearing  their  wants,  entering  into  their  disputes,  and 
seeing  their  dangers, — and  a  wholly  different  thing  to 
be  living  in  confinement,  actually  chained  to  a 
Roman  soldier,  and  with  only  distant  echoes  of 
what  was  going  on  in  the  Christian  world  borne 
to  him  from  without.  It  is  not  really  surprising 
that  in  the  Epistles  of  the  Imprisonment,  the  currents 
of  the  blood  and  of  the  brain  should  seem  more 
torpid  than   in    the    rest.      Neither   is    it    surprising 


ST.    PAUL  S    EPISTLES  2^ 

that  the  pressing  controversy  and  stirring  human 
interests  of  the  Central  group  should  be  reflected 
in  a  style  more  passionate  and  accentuated  than  the 
Apostle's  wont.  Bishop  Lightfoot  has  somewhere 
pointed  out  that  we  make  a  mistake  in  taking  these 
Epistles  as  a  standard  ot  St.  Paul's  normal  habit 
of  writing  ;  he  thought  that  for  this  purpose  the 
two  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  were  better  suited. 

Following  such  lines  of  argument  as  these  the 
great  majority  of  English  scholars  have  satisfied 
themselves  that  although  there  are  these  differences 
between  the  groups,  it  is  still  more  than  possible 
that  the  Epistles  are  all  by  the  same  hand,  and 
that  St.  Paul's.  The  differences  are  not  to  be 
overlooked,  but  they  cast  an  interesting  light  upon 
the  successive  phases  of  the  intense  and  strenuous 
life  of  the  great  Apostle. 

In  Germany,  too,  there  has  been  a  steady  reaction 
from  the  extreme  scepticism  of  the  middle  of  the 
last  century  ;  so  that  at  the  present  time  Harnack 
accepts  ten  of  the  thirteen  Epistles,  and  only  makes 
the  reserve  that  in  the  case  of  the  Pastorals 
materials  taken  from  genuine  letters  of  St.  Paul 
have  been  enlarged  and  expanded  into  their  present 
form.  The  other  Epistles  that  are  most  questioned 
are  Ephesians  and  2  Thessalonians. 

The  Epistle    to    the    Hebrews    stands    rather    by 


26         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

itself.  The  main  critical  question  in  regard  to  it — 
that  as  to  its  authorship — has  made  but  little  pro- 
gress since  it  was  discussed  by  the  scholars  of  the 
end  of  the  second  and  the  third  centuries,  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  Origen,  and  Tertullian.  Then,  as 
now,  it  was  agreed  that  the  writer  was  some  one 
allied  in  spirit  to  St.  Paul,  but  the  best  opinion 
was  that  he  was  not  St.  Paul  himself :  according  to 
Clement  some  said  that  the  Epistle  received  its 
actual  wording  from  St.  Luke,  others  from  his  own 
namesake,  the  Roman,  Clement.  Tertullian  alone 
states  positively,  as  if  from  knowledge,  that  the 
Epistle  was  the  work  of  Barnabas.  Origen  says  that 
"  who  actually  wrote  it  God  alone  knows."  Since 
that  date  the  only  plausible  suggestion  that  has 
been  made  is  Luther's  of  Apollos ;  and  now  quite 
recently  Harnack  ^  has  thrown  out  the  idea  that 
it  may  be  the  work  of  the  pair,  Aquila  and  Prisca 
or  Priscilla,  and  more  particularly  of  the  latter. 
This  too  will  seem  to  be  a  mere  guess,  but  it  is  at 
least  supported  with  much  skill. 

The  question  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle 
is  closely  bound  up  with  that  as  to  its  address  ; 
and  the  question  as  to  the  address  turns  very  much 
upon  the  observation  which  has  gained  strength  in 
recent    years,    that    the    indications    in    the    Epistle 

^  In   the  new  Zeitschrtft  fiir  die  Neutest.  Wissenschaft,  i.    i6  IF. 
(1900). 


THE    CATHOLIC    EPISTLES  27 

do  not  point  to  any  large  church  or  group  of 
churches  (such  as  the  churches  of  Palestine),  but 
rather  to  some  small  community  like  those  which 
are  described  as  meeting  "  in  the  houses "  of  the 
wealthier  Christians.  Just  such  a  community  met 
in  the  house  of  Prisca  and  Aquila  (Rom.  xvi.  5, 
I  Cor.  xvi.  19)  ;  and  the  personal  greetings  and 
very  individual  allusions  look  as  if  they  might 
have  been  meant  for  a  gathering  of  this  kind.  The 
leading  German  scholars  at  the  present  moment 
would  seek  the  destination  of  the  Epistle  in 
Rome. 

The  different  constituents  of  the  group  of  Catholic 
Epistles  stand  upon  a  different  footing.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  books  for  which  there  is  the 
oldest  evidence  are  i  St.  Peter  and  i  St.  John. 
The  criticism  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  John  is  naturally 
bound  up  with  that  of  the  Gospel.  The  most  in- 
teresting question  raised  by  any  member  of  the 
group  is  perhaps  that  as  to  i  St.  Peter,  how  on 
the  supposition  of  its  genuineness  we  are  to  account 
for  the  relation  in  which  it  stands  to  the  teaching 
of  St.  Paul.  It  is  now  generally  agreed  that  the 
Epistle  shows  marked  signs  of  Pauline  influence. 
On  this  question — and  indeed  on  all  points  relating 
to  the  Epistle — I  should  like  especially  to  commend 
to  you  the   commentary  recently  published  on  the 


28         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

two  Epistles  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Jude  by  Dr. 
Bigg}  On  all  the  problems  both  of  criticism  and 
of  interpretation,  it  is  written  with  much  freshness 
and  independence,  not  at  all  in  the  groove  of  any- 
particular  school,  and  with  a  lively  sense  of  what 
is  natural  and  human.  Dr.  Bigg  states  in  an 
attractive  way  the  view,  which  is  also  adopted  by 
Zahn,  that  Silvanus  acted  as  the  amanuensis  of  St. 
Peter,  and  that  the  latter  owed  not  a  little  of  its 
actual  shape  to  him.  In  any  case,  we  may  think 
of  Silvanus  as  a  living  link  between  the  two 
Apostles. 

Side  by  side  with  Dr.  Bigg's  commentary  are 
the  two  elaborate  and  even  exhaustive  articles  by 
Dr.  Chase  on  the  two  Epistles  that  bear  the  name 
of  St.  Peter  in  Hastings'  Dictionary.  A  compari- 
son of  these  articles  with  the  commentary  will 
place  the  reader  in  a  good  position  for  forming  his 
own  conclusions. 

I  hesitate  rather  to  speak  about  the  Book  of 
Revelation,  of  which  I  have  not  made  any  recent 
study,  and  in  regard  to  which  the  critical  problems 
are  so  complex  that  no  one  who  has  not  given 
them  close  study  should  pronounce  upon  them. 
If,  however,  I  may  give  such  impression  as  I 
have  for  what  it  is  worth  I  might  almost  do  so  in 

^  In  the  series  oi  International  Critical  Commentaries  :  Edinb.,  1901. 


THE    BOOK    OF    REVELATION  29 

words  recently  used  by  my  friend,  Dr.  Robertson 
of  King's  College.  "  The  difficulty  of  reconciling 
the  indications  which  point  respectively  to  the 
Neronic  or  Domitian  dates  may  be  due  to  the  use 
by  the  seer,  writing  under  Domitian,  of  earlier 
materials.  This  is  too  thoroughly  in  keeping  with 
the  phenomena  of  apocalyptic  literature  to  be  set 
aside  as  very  improbable.  But  the  book  as  it 
stands  is  too  entirely  the  work  of  its  final  author 
to  encourage  us  to  hope  that  the  derivative  passages 
can  be  disengaged  with  any  certainty  from  their 
present  context.  In  particular,  the  hypothesis  of 
a  non-Christian  Jewish  original  document  appears 
quite  gratuitous.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the 
Neronic  date  for  the  whole  book,  in  spite  of  the 
present  tendency  to  revert  to  the  tradition  of 
Irenaeus,   is  wholly   out  of  court."  ^ 

I  am  inclined  to  agree  with  this  estimate  even 
in  the  points  in  which  it  deviates  somewhat 
from  that  which  would  be  held  by  many 
scholars,  except  that  I  am  not  quite  so  sure  that 
the  hypothesis  of  the  use  of  non-Christian  materials 
is  wholly  to   be   excluded. 

The  rapid  survey  that  I  have  been  taking  has 
to  do  with  the  Literary  Criticism  of  the  N.T., 
and    more    particularly    with    so    much     of    it    as 

^  Regnum  Dei;  the  Bampton  Lectures  for  1901,  p.  107  n. 


30        THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

English  theologians  have  had  no  difficulty  in 
recognising.  So  far  as  this  literary  side  of  criticism 
is  concerned  the  century  which  has  now  elapsed 
has  seen  a  substantial  advance.  Many  extravagant 
theories,  put  forward  by  way  of  experiment,  have 
been  discarded,  and  other  sounder  theories  have 
taken  their  place.  The  advance,  if  slow,  has  been 
sure  ;  because  it  has  been  accompanied  by  much 
careful  testing  and  sifting.  The  amount  of 
agreement  among  scholars  of  different  nation- 
alities is  increasing,  and  a  reasonable  spirit  on  the 
whole  prevails. 

I  do  not  mean  that  there  are  not  many  serious 
questions  still  remaining,  but  those  questions  are, 
to  a  comparatively  small  extent,  literary.  Within 
the  region  of  literary  criticism  there  is  enough 
common  ground  to  make  the  conflicting  opinions 
no  longer,  as  they  at  one  time  seemed,  irreconcil- 
able. 

The  criticism  that  lies  outside  the  literary  sphere 
is  at  the  present  moment  rather  in  a  state  of 
flux.  Neither  the  questions  to  be  asked  nor  the 
answers  to  them  stand  out  as  yet  with  sufficient 
clearness.  It  would  be  better  that  the  professed 
scholars  should  work  at  it  a  little  more  before  it 
is  brought   down  into  the  public  arena. 


Manuscripts 


The  criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  as  of  any 
work  of  literature  of  sufficient  importance  to  be 
criticised,  falls,  according  to  a  common  division, 
into  two  parts,  the  higher  and  the  lower  criticism. 
The  higher  criticism,  as  is  explained  more  fully 
in  the  previous  lecture,  deals  with  the  origin, 
history,  character,  and  sources  of  the  books  in 
question  ;  the  lower  with  their  text.  Its  function 
is  to  determine,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  the  precise 
form  and  language  of  a  book  as  originally  written 
down  by  its  author;  a  task,  the  difficulty  of  which 
varies  greatly  in  different  cases,  according  to  the 
age  of  the  book  and  the  extent  and  character  of 
the  evidence  available.  It  is  important,  however,  to 
recognise  from  the  first  that  the  problem  is  essen- 
tially the  same,  whether  we  are  dealing  with  sacred 
or  secular  literature,  although  the  difficulty  of 
solving  it,  and  likewise  the  issues  depending  on  it, 
are  very  different.     It  is  important,  if  for  no  other 


32  MANUSCRIPTS 

reason,  because  it  is  only  in  this  way  that  we  can  meet 
the  hostile  critics  of  the  New  Testament  with  argu- 
ments, the  force  of  which  they  admit.  If  we  assume 
from  the  first  the  supernatural  character  of  these 
books,  and  maintain  that  this  affects  the  manner 
in  which  their  text  has  come  down  to  us,  we  can 
never  convince  those  who  start  with  a  denial  of 
that  supernatural  character.  We  treat  them  at  first 
like  any  other  books,  in  order  to  show  at  last 
that  they  are  above  and  beyond  all  other  books. 
It  would  be  a  lack  of  faith  to  doubt  the  issue  of 
such  an  inquiry,  and  the  history  of  New  Testament 
criticism  during  the  last  two  generations  shows  that 
doubt  would  be  unfounded.  The  application  of 
scientific  criticism  to  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, by  laymen  as  well  as  by  clerics,  by  classical 
scholars  as  well  as  by  divines,  has  resulted  in 
establishing  them  on  a  foundation  more  unassailable 
than  ever. 

But  why,  it  may  be  asked,  is  criticism  necessary 
in  order  to  ascertain  the  precise  text  of  the  New 
Testament.''  The  answer  is  simple.  The  necessity 
arises  solely  from  the  conditions  under  which  books 
v/ere  written  and  circulated  in  ancient  days.  It 
is  only  since  the  invention  of  printing  that  there 
has  been  any  possibility  of  guaranteeing  that  all 
copies  of  a  book  should  be  identical ;  and  out  of 
the    eighteen    hundred    or    eighteen    hundred    and 


TEXTUAL    CRITICISM  23 

fifty  years  which  separate  us  from  the  time  at 
which  these  books  were  written,  only  four  hundred 
and  fifty  are  covered  by  the  existence  of  printing. 
Before  printing  was  invented,  every  copy  of  a  book 
must  be  separately  written  by  hand ;  and,  as  those 
who  have  ever  done  much  copying  will  know,  by 
no  possibility  can  the  human  hand  and  eye  be  kept 
from  making  mistakes.  Mistakes,  if  not  recog- 
nised, are  perpetuated  by  later  scribes  ;  if  recognised, 
they  will  often  be  wrongly  corrected ;  and  so  the 
circle  of  error  goes  on  widening  from  generation 
to  generation.  Of  all  the  many  thousand  manu- 
script copies  of  the  Bible  in  existence  it  may  safely 
be  asserted  that  no  two  are  quite  alike,  and  that 
none  is  wholly  free  from  error. 

The  function  of  textual  criticism,  then,  is  the 
removal  of  these  errors.  The  basis  of  its  procedure 
lies  in  the  comparison  of  all  the  available  authorities. 
We  must  ascertain  what  copies  of  the  book  in 
question  are  in  existence,  and  which  of  them  come 
nearest  in  date  to  the  lifetime  of  the  original 
author.  We  must  also  make  up  our  mind,  by  the 
application  of  the  ordinary  and  common-sense  canons 
of  textual  science,  as  to  the  comparative  merits  of 
the  several  authorities.  Many  errors  are  manifest ; 
and  a  copy  which  has  evidently  been  carelessly 
made  will  carry  less  weight  in  cases  of  doubt  than 

one  which   has  been  transcribed   with  care.     Often 

c 


34         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

one  of  two  rival  readings  is  manifestly  derived 
from  the  other ;  and  a  manuscript  which  is  found 
to  be  addicted  to  such  derivative  readings  will 
carry  less  weight  than  one  which  is  free  from  this 
charge.  By  these  and  similar  methods,  all  based 
upon  common  sense,  but  which  would  take  too 
long  to  describe  here,  it  is  possible  to  gauge  the 
character  of  manuscripts,  to  divide  them  into  groups 
or  classes,  and  to  know  what  manuscripts  or  what 
class  of  manuscripts  most  deserve  our  confidence 
in  cases  of  doubt. 

Let  us  see,  then,  what  resources  are  at  our 
disposal  for  ascertaining  the  true  text  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament.  We  do  not  possess,  for 
example,  the  very  copy  of  the  Epistle  which  St. 
Paul  sent  to  the  Galatians,  subscribed  with  large 
characters  in  his  own  hand,  nor  that  which  St. 
John  wrote  to  the  well-beloved  Gaius  with  pen 
and  ink ;  but  we  have  many  and  ancient  copies 
of  them  in  their  original  language,  and  still  more 
copies  of  translations  of  them  into  other  tongues. 
The  number  of  manuscript  copies  of  the  whole  or 
parts  of  the  New  Testament  exceeds  immeasurably 
that  which  we  have  of  any  other  work  of  ancient 
literature,  and  the  earliest  of  them  come  nearer 
to  the  date  at  which  the  books  were  originally 
written.  For  most  ancient  Greek  and  Latin  books 
the  manuscript  authorities  must  be  counted  by  units 


AUTHORITIES    FOR    THE    TEXT  35 

or  tens,  very  rarely  by  hundreds,  while  for  the  New 
Testament  they  must  be  reckoned  by  thousands ; 
and  if  we  find  that,  out  of  all  these  thousands, 
comparatively  few  reach  the  highest  standard  of 
trustworthiness,  we  must  remember  that  in  the 
case  of  most  secular  literature,  for  ^schylus,  for 
Sophocles,  for  Plato,  for  Demosthenes,  for  Livy, 
for  Tacitus,  we  are  mainly  dependent  on  one  or  at 
most  two  copies,  the  value  of  which  far  transcends 
that  of  all  their  companions. 

The  authorities  for  the  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment are  of  three  kinds :  first,  manuscripts,  or 
copies  of  it,  or  of  parts  of  it,  in  the  original  Greek ; 
secondly,  ancient  versions,  or  translations  of  it  into 
other  languages — Syriac,  Latin,  Coptic,  and  so  on — 
which  show  us  what  form  the  Scriptures  had  when 
they  were  translated  into  those  tongues ;  thirdly, 
quotations  in  ancient  writers,  which  show  us  what 
sort  of  manuscripts  the  early  Fathers  of  the  Church 
used  in  different  parts  of  the  Christian  world.  It  is 
only  with  the  first  of  these  classes,  with  the  manu- 
scripts in  the  original  Greek,  that  I  have  to  deal 
in  this  lecture.  The  versions  will  be  treated  by 
another  hand  in  the  next  lecture  of  this  course ; 
while  both  I  and  my  successor  will  have  to  refer 
to  the  evidence  which  the  patristic  quotations  throw 
upon  the  character  and  history  of  the  authorities 
with  which  we  deal. 


36         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Of  manuscripts  containing  the  New  Testament 
in  Greek,  or  some  part  of  it,  more  than  three 
thousand  are  now  known ;  and  the  question  at 
once  arises,  how  are  we  to  choose  among  so  great 
a  crowd  of  witnesses  ?  The  first  step  naturally  is 
to  ask,  how  near  do  any  of  these  manuscripts  take 
us  to  the  date  of  the  original  autographs  ?  Now, 
setting  aside  a  few  small  scraps,  which  will  be 
mentioned  again  later,  the  earliest  manuscripts  of 
the  New  Testament  are  two,  the  Codex  Vaticanus 
and  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  which  may  be  assigned, 
on  fairly  satisfactory  grounds,  to  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. There  is  consequently  an  interval  of  about 
three  hundred,  or  at  least  two  hundred  and 
fifty,  years  between  the  composition  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  and  the  earliest  extant  copies 
of  them.  Is  there  any  explanation  of  this  interval  ? 
Is  there  anything  abnormal  about  it — anything  which 
may  be  regarded  as  a  ground  of  suspicion  against 
the  trustworthiness  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  ?  Or, 
if  not,  at  any  rate  what  effect  has  this  interval 
had  on  the  state  in  which  the  Scriptures  have 
come  down  to  us  ?  These  are  questions  which 
suggest  themselves,  and  to  which  an  answer  must 
be  given. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  there  is  nothing  abnormal 
in  this  state  of  things.  The  same  state  of  things 
exists,    in    even    greater    measure,    with    regard    to 


MATERIALS    OF    ANCIENT    MANUSCRIPTS  37 

practically  all  the  works  of  classical  literature  which 
have  come  down  to  us.  With  the  exception  of  a 
few  manuscripts  on  papyrus  which  have  come  to 
light  of  recent  years,  there  are  no  classical  manu- 
scripts of  earlier  date  than  those  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  that  although  the  originals  were 
composed  several  centuries  before  the  Gospels  and 
Epistles.  There  is  nothing  in  this  circumstance  to 
cast  doubt  upon  our  sacred  books  ;  it  is  merely 
the  result  of  the  conditions  under  which  books  were 
produced  before  the  fourth  century  of  our  era.  To 
understand  the  problems  of  textual  criticism,  espe- 
cially in  the  New  Testament,  it  is  necessary  to  bear 
in  mind  the  conditions  under  which  books  were 
written  and  circulated  in  those  far-off  days. 

During  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era,  and 
for  a  considerable  period  both  before  and  after- 
wards, the  material  upon  which  books  were  written, 
in  all  the  countries  in  which  the  various  parts  of 
the  New  Testament  were  composed  and  copied, 
was  papyrus.  This  material,  made  out  of  the  pith 
of  the  papyrus  plant,  which  at  that  time  grew  plenti- 
fully in  Egypt,  whence  it  was  exported  for  use  in 
other  lands,  was  a  somewhat  delicate  fabric,  not  at 
all  calculated  to  resist  the  wear  and  tear  of  time. 
Originally  perhaps  about  as  strong  as  modern  paper, 
it  has  become,  in  the  specimens  of  it  which  still 
survive,  so  brittle  that  it  cannot  be  handled  without 


38         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

serious  risk  of  damage,  and  would  speedily  crumble 
to  pieces  in  the  ordinary  course  of  use  as  a  book. 
Consequently  it  is  only  under  exceptional  circum- 
stances that  it  has  survived  at  all.  In  any  ordinary 
climate,  damp  and  decay  have  inevitably  destroyed 
it ;  and  the  only  place  in  which  it  has  survived  is 
in  parts  of  Egypt  above  the  Delta.  There  the 
soil  and  climate  are  so  dry  that  even  this  fragile 
material,  once  buried  in  the  ground,  has  continued 
to  exist,  becoming  more  brittle,  it  is  true,  and 
liable  to  mutilation  in  various  ways,  but  still  with- 
out losing  legibility  ;  and  hence,  from  the  tombs 
and  rubbish  heaps  of  buried  Egyptian  cities,  have 
been  disinterred  the  precious  fragments  of  Greek 
literature,  and  the  great  mass  of  Greek  business 
documents,  which  have  rewarded  explorers  during 
the  past  century,  and  especially  during  the  last 
fifteen  years.  But  with  these  exceptions,  all  books 
written  during  the  period  when  papyrus  was  the 
material  in  use  have  perished  utterly,  and  the  litera- 
ture which  they  enshrined  is  known  to  us  only  in 
copies  made  at  a  later  date,  when  papyrus  had 
been  superseded  by  a  more  durable  fabric. 

For  more  than  two  hundred  years,  consequently, 
the  New  Testament  Scriptures  circulated  mainly,  if 
not  wholly,  in  this  perishable  material,  and  from 
this  period  only  the  scantiest  remains  have  come 
down  to    us.     A  few  scraps  which  can  be  assigned 


PRESERVATION    OF    MANUSCRIPTS  39 

to  the  third  century  after  Christ  alone  survive  out 
of  all   the    copies  which   may  have   once   circulated 
in   Egypt,   while    outside    that    country   nothing   at 
all  is  left.     Had  the  Christian  books  been  ordinary 
products   of  the    literature  of  the  day,  and  subject 
only    to     the    same    conditions    as    ^schylus     and 
Sophocles,  Herodotus  and  Thucydides,  we  still  could 
not  be  surprised   at  the  disappearance  of  all  copies 
from    this    early    period :     for    these    authors    have 
fared    no    better    than   St.  Luke   or  St.  Paul.     But 
when  we  consider  the  position   of  Christians  under 
the    pagan    Empire,    there    is    still    less   room    for 
wonder.     The  Christians  were  mainly  a  poor  folk, 
not     much     given     to     reading     or     writing,    and 
without     free     command    of    the     ordinary    means 
of  book-production.       In    Alexandria,    where    con- 
ditions   were  more    favourable,    and    in    the    Delta 
generally,  the  dampness  of  the   soil  is  fatal  to  the 
survival  of  papyrus,  so   that    all    copies   written    in 
that  part   of  the    country  have    perished.     Further, 
the   Christians  were    liable   to   persecution,  and   the 
records    of  the   persecutions  show  that  their  sacred 
books   were   often   a  principal  object    of  search  and 
destruction    on  the  part  of  their  persecutors.     The 
copies  possessed   by  the    churches,  which  would  be 
most   likely  to    be    carefully  and    correctly  written, 
would    also    be    the    most    likely    to    perish  in    this 
way.     In  many  instances,  we  can  hardly  doubt,  the 


40        THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

tradition  of  the  sacred  text  would  be  preserved  only 
in  the  private  copies  made  by  individuals  for  their 
personal  use ;  and  these,  as  we  can  see  from  the 
example  of  similar  copies  of  classical  authors  which 
have  actually  come  down  to  us,  would  often  be 
full  of  verbal  and  even  substantial  inaccuracies. 
Opportunities  of  rectifying  errors  by  comparison 
with  accurate  copies  at  a  distance  or  in  other 
countries  would  be  few,  and  hence  divergences 
would  increase  and  local  types  of  text  be  formed. 
Moreover,  in  the  early  days,  when  the  speedy 
coming  of  the  Lord  was  expected,  precise  verbal 
accuracy  was  of  less  importance  than  the  substance 
of  the  sacred  record,  and  we  cannot  wonder  if  scribes 
felt  at  liberty  to  alter  the  wording  of  the  narrative, 
or  to  insert  incidents  of  our  Lord's  life  which 
they  believed  to  be  authentic  and  valuable. 

Another  characteristic  of  ancient  books  must  be 
mentioned,  which  had  some  effect  on  the  textual 
history  of  the  New  Testament.  During  nearly  the 
whole  of  the  period  in  which  papyrus  was  the  pre- 
dominant book-material,  books  were  not  written  in 
pages,  as  they  now  are,  but  on  continuous  rolls. 
This  fact  has  long  been  known  from  the  state- 
ments of  contemporary  writers,  but  it  is  only  of 
late  years  that  specimens  of  such  rolls  have  come 
to  light  in  considerable  numbers.  We  now  possess 
^papyrus    rolls    containing    literary    works,    ranging 


PAPYRUS    ROLLS  4I 

from  the  third  century  before  Christ  to  the  third 
century  after  Christ,  or  to  the  seventh  century  if  we 
include  rolls  containing  non-literary  documents ; 
and  consequently  we  know  sufficiently  well  the 
general  appearance  of  books  at  the  time  when  the 
New  Testament  was  written.  Now  these  rolls 
seldom  exceed  a  length  of  thirty  feet ;  indeed  they 
are  generally  shorter,  and  we  must  take  it  as 
certain  that  they  were  never  appreciably  longer. 
This  is  a  length  which,  with  medium-sized  writing, 
will  about  suffice  for  one  of  the  longer  books  of 
the  New  Testament, — one  of  the  Gospels  or  the 
Acts ;  but  it  would  certainly  not  hold  more  than 
one.  Consequently  we  must  regard  the  New 
Testament  as  circulating,  not  in  complete  volumes 
such  as  we  now  have,  but  in  a  number  of  separate 
rolls ;  and  we  must  not  suppose  that  every  Christian 
had  a  complete  set  of  them.  Some  would  have  one 
Gospel,  some  another  ;  some  books  would  be  popu- 
lar in  one  country,  some  in  another ;  so  that  the 
fact  that  an  early  Christian  writer  quotes  some 
books  and  not  others  affords  no  presumption  that 
the  latter  did  not  exist  or  were  not  recognised  as 
authoritative  in  his  time.  Also  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  the  text  was  not  divided  into 
numbered  chapters  and  verses.  Divisions  between 
sentences  might  be  marked,  though  even  this  is  not 
always  the  case ;    but  that   is  all  the  aid  which  we 


42        THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

find  given  to  the  reader  of  an  ancient  book,  and 
it  must  have  been  far  from  easy  to  identify  refer- 
ences. Hence  we  need  not  be  surprised  if  early 
writers  quote  inexactly  and  from  memory. 

It  is  during  the  third  century  that  we  find  a 
change  coming  over  the  methods  of  book-production. 
In  the  place  of  rolls,  we  begin  to  find  rudimentary 
books.  The  material  is  still  generally  papyrus,  but 
it  is  cut  into  pages,  which  are  fastened  together  by 
strings  passing  through  their  left-hand  margins,  in 
imitation  of  the  sets  of  wax  tablets  which  were 
then  (and  previously)  in  use  as  note-books.  To 
books  of  this  kind — our  modern  book-form — the 
name  of  codex  was  given.  At  first  they  were  used 
for  note-books,  or  for  inferior  copies  of  works  of 
literature,  the  roll  form  still  holding  its  own  for 
the  better  kind  of  copies.  But  the  Christian  writers, 
we  may  be  sure,  had  often  to  make  use  of  the 
inferior  and  cheaper  forms  of  reproduction ;  and 
such  evidence  as  has  yet  come  to  light  tends  to 
show  that  it  was  among  the  Christians  especially 
that  the  codex  form  was  first  used  to  any  great 
extent.  The  earliest  extant  examples  of  it  nearly 
all  contain  Christian  writings,  while  contemporary 
copies  of  pagan  literature  are  still  almost  all  in 
roll  form.  In  the  few  leaves  of  these  codices  which 
remain  to  us  from  the  third  century — small  and 
roughly-written  for  the  most  part,  with  little  of  the 


DESTRUCTION  OF  SACRED  BOOKS        43 

workmanship  of  the  trained  scribe — we  may  see  the 
relics  of  the  volumes  which  the  earliest  Christians 
used,  easy  to  carry  on  the  person,  to  pass  from 
hand  to  hand,  and  easy  also  to  conceal  in  days  of 
persecution.  But  as  roughly  written  books  are 
seldom  accurately  copied,  we  must  not  be  surprised 
if  errors  in  detail  crept  largely  into  a  literature 
which  circulated  so  much  in  private  and  half- 
hidden  ways. 

During  the  third  century,  no  doubt,  the  external 
conditions  of  Christianity  were  improving.  Its 
congregations  were  larger  and  more  important ; 
toleration  was  more  general ;  and  it  could  hold  its 
services  and  multiply  its  books  with  little  interfer- 
ence from  the  populace  or  the  civil  power.  But 
these  improved  conditions  were  liable  to  sharp 
breaches  of  continuity ;  and  when  persecution  came, 
as  under  Decius  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century 
and  under  Diocletian  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth, 
it  came  with  great  severity.  We  know  also,  from 
the  records  of  these  persecutions,  that  a  special  point 
was  made  of  the  destruction  of  the  sacred  books,  so 
that  the  surrender  of  them  became  an  act  specially 
marked  among  Christian  congregations,  into  which 
inquiries  were  held,  and  for  which  punishments 
were  inflicted,  when  the  storm  of  persecution  had 
gone  by.  On  the  whole,  then,  we  must  not  look 
for  any  great  amendment  in  the  chances  of  survival 


44        THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

for  Christian   manuscripts   until    the   fourth  century 
was  well  advanced  in  its  course. 

We  reach  here  a  critical  point  in  the  history,  not 
only  of  Christian  literature,  but  of  Christianity 
itself.  In  312  or  313  complete  religious  toleration 
throughout  the  Empire  was  proclaimed  by  Con- 
stantine ;  in  325  the  Council  of  Nicaea  was  held; 
in  330  the  new  capital,  Constantinople,  was  in- 
augurated with  Christian  ceremonial,  and  furnished 
by  the  emperor  with  Christian  churches.  There 
was  no  longer  any  obstacle  to  the  free  circulation 
of  Christian  literature ;  and  at  the  same  period  a 
new  departure  of  the  greatest  importance  was  made 
in  book-production.  This  was  the  supersession  of 
papyrus  by  vellum  as  the  principal  material  upon 
which  books  were  written.  Of  course  the  change 
was  not  made  suddenly  at  a  given  moment. 
Vellum  had  long  been  used  for  note-books  and 
inferior  purposes,  and  during  the  third  century  it 
had  been  coming  into  use  as  a  vehicle  of  literature. 
A  few — very  few — specimens  have  been  found  in 
Egypt  which  may  be  assigned  to  the  second  and 
third  centuries ;  but  outside  Egypt,  the  special  home 
of  the  papyrus,  the  change  seems  to  have  gone 
further.  In  the  records  of  the  search  for  books 
during  the  persecution  of  Diocletian  in  Africa, 
vellum  codices  and  rolls  (presumably  of  papyrus) 
are    both    mentioned,  the    former   oftenest,   so    that 


USE    OF    VELLUM  45 

we  may  conclude  that  the  use  of  the  new  material 
was  fairly  well  established  by  that  time ;  but  it  was 
only  in  the  fourth  century  that  its  supremacy  was 
finally  assured.  Papyrus  continued  to  be  used,  and 
books  written  upon  it  are  extant  as  late  as  the 
seventh  century,  while  in  Egypt  it  remained  in 
use  still  later,  after  the  Arab  conquest  had  practi- 
cally closed  the  door  to  its  export  to  the  Christian 
world  outside ;  but  from  the  fourth  century  on- 
wards vellum  is  the  material  regularly  in  use  for 
the  best  copies  of  all  works  of  literature. 

This  victory,  which  is  marked  for  us  by  the  fact 
that  the  copies  of  the  Scriptures  which  Constantine 
ordered  for  the  churches  of  his  new  capital  were 
written  upon  vellum,  is  of  fundamental  importance 
in  the  history  of  textual  criticism.  In  the  first 
place,  it  now  became  possible  to  include  all  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  or  even  of  the  whole 
Bible,  in  a  single  volume,  a  possibility  which  pro- 
moted the  consideration,  and  so  ultimately  the 
determination,  of  the  limits  of  the  Canon.  Secondly, 
the  new  material  was  infinitely  more  durable  than 
papyrus,  so  much  so  that  several  volumes  have 
lasted,  often  with  little  damage,  from  that  day  to 
this,  and  that  not  only,  like  papyrus,  in  the  special 
climate  of  Egypt.  It  is  in  fact  from  the  fourth 
century  that  the  earliest  extant  manuscripts  of  the 
Greek    Bible    (small    scraps    excepted)    have    come 


46        THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

down  to  US ;  and  consequently  it  is  from  this 
point  that  we  begin  to  gather  in  the  materials  of 
textual  criticism. 

In  this  manner  the  papyrus  period  may  be 
characterised  as  the  period  in  which  the  textual 
problems  came  into  being,  which  we  have  to  try 
to  solve  with  the  help  of  the  evidence  afforded  by 
the  later  periods.  This  evidence  can  only  be 
briefly  summarised,  its  extent  is  so  great.  From 
the  fourth  century  we  have  two  great  manuscripts, 
the  Codex  Vaticanus  and  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  the 
latter  perfect,  so  far  as  the  New  Testament  is  con- 
cerned, the  former  wanting  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
and  the  Apocalypse.  It  has  been  supposed  by 
some  that  these  are  actually  two  of  the  fifty  volumes 
prepared  at  the  emperor's  command  by  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea  for  the  churches  of  Constantinople  ;  but 
for  this  identification  there  is  no  substantial  evidence. 
They  may  have  been  written  at  Caesarea,  but  per- 
haps more  probably  in  Egypt.  To  the  fifth  century 
probably  belong  two  more  great  manuscripts,  the 
Codex  Alexandrinus  and  the  Codex  Ephraemi — 
the  latter  a  mutilated  palimpsest — and  about  twelve 
small  fragments.  To  the  sixth  century  are  assigned 
the  Codex  Bezae  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  a 
manuscript  in  both  Greek  and  Latin,  of  most 
remarkable  character  and  great  importance ;  the 
Codex     Claromontanus,    a    Graeco-Latin      MS.     of 


UNCIALS    AND     MINUSCULES  47 

St.  Paul's  Epistles,  and  about  thirty  small  frag- 
ments. The  seventh,  eighth,  and  ninth  centuries 
add  considerably  to  the  totals  of  our  manuscript 
authorities,  though  their  individual  importance 
diminishes  as  we  pass  further  from  the  date  of 
composition  of  the  books  contained  in  them. 

So  far,  all  our  manuscripts  are  written  in  what 
is  known  as  uncial  writing  ;  that  is,  in  capital  letters, 
each  formed  separately.  Of  such  manuscripts,  129 
are  now  reckoned  in  our  lists,  of  which  47  contain 
some  substantial  portion  of  the  New  Testament, 
the  rest  being  mere  fragments.  In  the  ninth 
century,  however,  a  new  kind  of  writing  came 
into  use,  known  as  minuscule.  This  was  a  modi- 
fication for  literary  purposes  of  the  common 
writing  of  the  day,  and  being  far  less  cumbrous 
and  inconvenient  than  the  large  and  heavy  uncial 
writing  then  in  use,  it  rapidly  superseded  it  as 
the  main  vehicle  for  literature.  Beginning  in  the 
ninth  century,  and  gaining  a  decisive  victory  in 
the  tenth,  from  that  point  onwards  it  held  its  own, 
with  modifications  only  in  detail,  until  handwriting 
was  superseded  by  print  at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth 
century.  The  greater  ease  of  book-production 
brought  about  by  the  invention  of  the  minuscule 
style  led  to  a  great  increase  of  books,  and  especially 
of  copies  of  the  Scriptures  ;  so  that  of  minuscule 
copies    of   the   New   Testament,   or    of  considerable 


48         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

portions    of  it,    no    less    than    three    thousand    are 
already  reckoned  in  our  lists. 

Such    being  the  mass  of  material,  in  manuscripts 
alone,    with    which    the    textual    critic    has   to   deal, 
it  remains   to   ask  what    use    has    been,   or   can   be, 
made  of  it.     Let   me  begin   by  suggesting  another 
question.       How    many    of    these    manuscripts,    do 
you    suppose,    were    consulted    in    the    preparation 
of  the  printed  text  which  we   find  in  our  common 
Greek  Testaments,  and  from  which  our  Authorised 
Version  was  made  ?     Perhaps  between  twenty  and 
thirty    in    all  ;     and    these   selected   neither   for  age 
nor  excellence,  but  for  the  most  part  because  they 
were    the    manuscripts    which    happened    to    be    at 
the  editor's  disposal.     The  first  printed    edition    of 
the    Greek    New    Testament,    that    of    Erasmus    in 
1 5 16,   was    based  on   five  MSS.,  and   mainly   upon 
three  only — one  for  the  Gospels,  one  for  the  Acts 
and  Epistles,  and  one  for  the  Apocalypse,  all  com- 
paratively late  minuscule  copies.     A  comparison  of 
this    text    with    that    of  the  Complutensian    edition 
and    with    fifteen     MSS.,    mostly    minuscule    copies 
at  Paris,  produced  the  edition  of  Stephanus  in  1550  ; 
and  Stephanus'  text,  with  very  slight  modifications, 
is  our   Received    Text    to    the  present    day.     Only 
one  uncial    manuscript,   the    Codex    Bezae,    appears 
to  have   been   taken   into  consideration   at   all,   and 


COLLECTION    OF    EVIDENCE  49 

that  but  slightly.     All  the  other  ancient  authorities 
were  either  unknown  or  unexamined. 

Consider  then  in  what  a  different  position  we 
stand  to-day.  Since  the  date  of  the  establishment 
of  the  Received  Text,  and  since  the  publication 
of  the  Authorised  Version  in  1611,  scholars  have 
been  busy  in  the  collection  of  evidence  from  all 
quarters,  from  manuscripts,  from  ancient  versions, 
and  from  quotations  in  the  early  Fathers.  The 
process  may  be  said  to  begin  with  the  great  poly- 
glott  Bible  of  Bishop  Brian  Walton,  of  which  the 
New  Testament  was  published  in  1657;  and  it  is 
not  finished  yet.  Within  the  last  few  months  two 
valuable  uncial  manuscripts  have  come  to  light, 
one  a  sixth  century  fragment  of  St.  Matthew, 
written  in  letters  of  gold  upon  purple  vellum, 
the  other  a  nearly  complete  copy  of  the  Gospels 
of  the  ninth  century ;  while  the  harvest  gleaned 
from  Versions  and  the  Fathers  increases  day  by 
day.  It  is  not  necessary  to  describe  the  accumu- 
lation of  evidence  in  detail,  but  a  few  sahent  points 
may  be  indicated.  It  is  a  process  which  falls  into 
two  parts,  the  first  being  the  collection  of  evidence, 
and  the  second  its  classification  and  use.  In  the 
department  of  collection,  the  model  for  all  future 
workers  was  set  by  Dr.  John  Mill,  whose  edition, 
the  fruit  of  thirty  years'  labour,  was  published  in 
1707.     Other  scholars    followed  in  his    tracks,  and 

D 


50         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

for  the  next  150  years  it  was  the  collection  of 
evidence  which  was  the  principal  care  of  textual 
scholars.  Not  until  the  nineteenth  century  was 
well  advanced  did  any  critic  set  his  hand  to  using 
the  accumulated  material  for  a  revision  of  the 
Received  Text.  In  this  department  of  criticism 
the  pioneer  was  the  German  scholar,  Karl  Lach- 
mann,  who  applied  to  the  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  principles  which  he  had  learnt  in  the 
study  of  classical  literature.  Selecting  from  the 
mass  of  authorities  then  at  his  disposal  those  which 
seemed  to  him  the  oldest  and  the  best,  he  con- 
structed from  them  a  revised  Greek  text  of  the 
New  Testament,  which  was  printed  first  in  1831, 
and  again,  with  fuller  annotation,  in  1 842-1 850. 

Lachmann  was  followed  by  a  pair  of  scholars 
who  have  left  a  deep  mark  in  the  history  of 
textual  criticism,  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles. 
Tischendorf  had  the  good  fortune  to  discover  the 
great  Codex  Sinaiticus,  as  well  as  a  large  number 
of  uncial  fragments  ;  but  Tregelles  was  not  behind 
him  in  labour  or  skill.  Both  were  indefatigable 
collators  of  manuscripts  ;  both  applied  their  col- 
lations to  the  preparation  of  revised  Greek  texts. 
Both  did  much  to  demonstrate,  and  did  indeed 
demonstrate  conclusively,  that  the  Received  Text 
rested  on  a  slender  basis  of  inferior  materials,  and 
that,  although  the  substance  of  the  Scriptures  was, 


CLASSIFICATION    OF    MANUSCRIPTS  5 1 

no  doubt,  faithfully  preserved  in  it,  yet  in  details 
it  was  capable  of  much  amendment.  Their  labours 
went  far  to  establish  the  necessity  for  a  revision 
of  the  Received  Text,  and  therewith  of  the 
Authorised  Version. 

One  step  yet  remained  to  take  ;  a  step  of  great  T^  ^ 
importance.  In  dealing  with  manuscripts  of 
classical  literature,  it  is  usual  (now,  indeed,  uni- 
versal) to  try  to  divide  them  into  groups,  accord- 
ing to  their  relationships  to  each  other.  Some 
MSS.  can  be  shown  to  be  copied,  directly  or  in- 
directly, from  others ;  some  to  be  descendants 
from  a  common  original  nearer  to  the  author's 
autograph  ;  some  to  represent  a  revision  under- 
taken by  a  mediaeval  editor  ;  while  of  such  groups 
or  families  some  can  be  shown  to  be  distinctly 
preferable  to  others,  and  consequently  to  deserve 
credence  in  cases  which  otherwise  would  be 
doubtful.  So  far,  no  one  had  succeeded  in  apply- 
ing this  system  to  the  manuscripts  of  the  New 
Testament.  Tentative  classifications  had  indeed 
been  made  by  a  few  scholars,  of  whom  the  most 
distinguished  was  Griesbach,  about  the  end  of  the 
1 8th  century;  but  their  classifications  had  been 
rejected  by  their  contemporaries,  and  even  they 
themselves  had  not  ventured  to  apply  them  to 
the  actual  restoration  of  the   Biblical  text. 

This  step  was  taken  by  the  two  great  Cambridge 


IX^' 


52         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

scholars,  whose  names  are  household  words  in 
the  history  of  textual  criticism,  Bishop_Westcott 
and_Dr.  Hort.  A  knowledge  of  their  principles, 
and  of  the  conclusions  to  which  they  came,  is 
essential  for  the  understanding  of  the  textual 
criticism  of  to-day  ;  for  at  the  present  time  e\^ery 
scholar  and  critic  of  note  takes  off  from  the  theory 
which  they  laid  down.  This  theory  can  be  out- 
lined in  a  few  words.  An  examination  of  the 
evidence  which  has  been  collected  from  Manu- 
scripts, Versions,  and  Fathers  shows  that,  in  cases 
where  differences  exist,  certain  authorities  are  found 
habitually  to  agree  with  one  another,  and  to  be 
in  opposition  to  certain  other  groups  similarly 
formed.  Thus  groups  can  be  distinguished,  each 
having  presumably  some  common  ancestor,  short 
of  the  original  author's  autograph  ;  and  we  are 
then  in  a  position  to  go  further,  to  estimate  the 
comparative  value  of  each  of  these  groups,  and 
to  try  to  locate  their  respective  ancestors  in  space 
and  time,  that  is,  to  determine  where  and  when 
the  types  of  text  which  they  represent  came  into 
existence.  It  will  be  evident  very  shortly  how 
this  is  done. 

Westcott  and  Hort,  following  the  lines  laid  down 
by  Griesbach,  but  following  them  more  elaborately, 
distinguished  four  classes  or  groups  in  the  authorities 
for  the    text  of  the   New  Testament.     First,  there 


WESTCOTT    AND    HORT  S    CLASSIFICATION  53 

is  the  group  to  which  the  Received  Text  belongs  ;    I 
a  group  to  which,  moreover,  the    vast   majority  of 
manuscripts    belongs  ;    a  group  which  has  had  the 
preponderance  in  the  textual  tradition  at  least  since 
the  6th  century.     This  group  Westcott  and  Hort, 
for    reasons    which    will    appear    shortly,    call    the 
Syrian  group.      Those    who  prefer  a  more    colour- 
less,   and    therefore    less    question-begging,    name, 
may    indicate    it    by   the    first    letter    of  the  Greek 
alphabet  and  call  it  the  y^Ipka-group  (a).     Secondly,  v 
there  is  a  group  to   which  the  earliest  extant  manu- 
scripts belong,  the  Codex  Vaticanus  and  the  Codex 
Sinaiticus,    supported    by    a     few    later   uncials  and 
minuscules,  and    by  one,  and  to   some  extent  two, 
of    the    ancient   Egyptian    versions.       This    group 
Westcott  and  Hort  call    the    Neutral  group,   indi- 
cating   thereby  their  belief  in  its  superiority  to   its 
rivals  ;    our    alternative    name  for  it  would  be    the 
Beta-group    (/3).     The   third  group   is   only,   so    to 
speak,    a    sub-species     of    the    last    named,    found 
when  there   is  a  difference  among    the    authorities 
of    that    group.      Such    differences    Westcott    and 
Hort  believed   to   be   due    to    slight    verbal    altera- 
tions,   made   probably    to    suit    the     taste    of    that 
great  centre   of  literary  criticism,  Alexandria  ;  con- 
sequently   they    call    it    Alexandrian.       The    more 
cautious    name    for    it    is    the    Gamma-group    (y). 
Finally  there  is  a  considerable  quantity  of  authorities, 


54         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

generally  of  very  early  date,  marked  by  strong 
divergences,  of  addition,  of  subtraction,  and  of 
verbal  variation,  from  all  the  other  groups.  They 
also  differ  considerably  among  themselves,  and  it 
is  difficult  to  suppose  that  they  can  trace  their 
origin  to  a  common  ancestor,  but  they  resemble 
one  another  sufficiently  in  the  character  of  their 
divergences  to  justify  their  being  grouped  to- 
gether. The  most  notable  manuscript  belonging 
to  this  group  is  the  Graeco-Latin  Codex  Bezae, 
with  which  are  allied  some  other  bilingual  manu- 
scripts ;  but  this  type  of  text  is  better  represented 
by  some  of  the  oldest  versions,  notably  the  Old 
Latin  and  the  Old  Syriac  Versions.  The  marked 
appearance  of  Latin  authorities  in  this  group  led 
Westcott  and  Hort  to  call  it  the  Western  group  ; 
but  the  name  is  misleading,  and  consequently  here, 
even  more  than  elsewhere,  a  non-committal  name 
is  preferable,  and  it  may  be  called  the  Delta- 
group  (^). 

Now,  so  far  as  the  greater  part  of  the  words 
of  the  New  Testament  are  concerned,  there  are 
no  differences  between  the  authorities  which  need 
be  taken  into  account ;  and  so  far  as  the  main 
events  and  doctrines  contained  in  them  are  con- 
cerned, it  may  be  said  at  once  that  here  too  there 
are  no  differences,  though  in  some  important  passages 
there  are  divergences  in  the  exact  wording.     When, 


THE    EARLY    FATHERS  ^^ 

however,  difFerences  of  reading  do  occur,  and  we 
find  that  the  authorities  are  divided  into  the  four 
groups  which  have  just  been  enumerated,  on  what 
principles  can  we  decide  between  them  ?  To  some 
extent  a  decision  can  be  made  upon  the  intrinsic 
merits  of  the  several  readings.  Thus  in  some  cases 
one  reading  has  obviously  been  developed  out  of 
the  other ;  in  others  it  is  possible  to  suppose  that  a 
false  reading  has  been  imported  into  a  passage  from 
another  passage  in  which  the  context  is  similar — a 
form  of  error  peculiarly  likely  to  happen  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels,  though  the  extent  to  which  an 
editor  will  admit  it  must  depend  upon  his  theory 
as  to  the  origin  and  composition  of  the  synoptic 
books.  But  such  decisions  rest  largely  on  the  pre- 
possessions and  personal  equation  of  the  critic,  and 
we  want  a  more  objective  criterion.  Such,  a  criterion 
would  be  provided  if  we  could  trace  the  history 
of  the  various  groups  of  authorities,  and  so  learn 
which  of  them  has  the  oldest  and  most  trustworthy 
ancestors.  The  essential  part  of  the  theory  of  West- 
cott  and  Hort  lies  in  their  provision  of  this  criterion. 
It  is  in  the  evidence  of  the  early  Fathers  that 
the  solution  of  the  problem  is  to  be  found.  By 
an  examination  of  the  quotations  from  the  Scrip- 
tures which  occur  in  their  writings  it  is  possible  to 
see  what  sort  of  manuscripts  they  used,  and  to 
which  of  our  four  groups  (if  to  any)  these  manu- 


56        THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

scripts  belonged ;  and  then  we  can  take  a  step 
further  and  see  to  what  date  and  to  what  country 
our  groups  can  severally  be  assigned.  Now  the 
corner-stone  of  Westcott  and  Hort's  theory  lies 
in  the  observation  that  no  characteristic  reading  of 
the  a-group  is  found  in  any  of  the  Fathers  before 
the  period  of  Chrysostom — that  is,  before  the  latter 
part  of  the  4th  century.  The  presumption  conse- 
quently is  that  this  type  of  text  is  of  relatively  late 
date,  due  either  to  a  revision  accomplished  at  some 
particular  time,  or,  perhaps  more  probably,  to  the 
result  of  a  revising  process  continued  over  a  period 
of  time.  This  conclusion  is  supported  by  the  fact 
that  readings  of  this  type  often  appear,  on  examina- 
tion, to  be  the  result  of  such  modifications  of 
readings  occurring  in  the  other  groups  as  might 
naturally  be  made  in  the  interests  of  smoother 
language  or  the  removal  of  apparent  difficulties. 
It  follows  that  when  a  reading  is  supported  solely 
by  authorities  belonging  to  this  family  (which 
consists,  as  above  stated,  mainly  of  the  later  uncials 
and  the  great  mass  of  the  minuscules),  there  is  a 
strong  presumption  that  it  is  not  the  original  text, 
but  the  result  of  a  relatively  late  revision.  It  is 
the  removal  of  such  readings  which  causes  the 
greater  part  of  the  differences  in  the  text  adopted 
by  the  Revisers  of  our  Bible  from  that  which 
underlies  the  Authorised  Version. 


THE  NEUTRAL  TEXT  (/3  GROUP)         57 

Upon  this  point,  namely,  the  secondary  character, 
as  it  may  be  called,  of  the  a-text,  critics  are  now 
generally  agreed ;  the  advocates  of  the  old  Received 
Text  are  now  few  and  far  between.  But  when  we 
come  to  the  remaining  famihes,  and  have  to  make 
a  choice  between  them,  it  is  less  easy  to  arrive  at  a 
decision.  The  third  family  (what  we  have  called 
►the  7-group)  may  indeed  be  left  out  of  the  question 
for  the  present,  because  it  consists  mainly  of  merely 
verbal  modifications  of  the  second  ;  but  between 
the  second  and  the  fourth  (the  /3  and  ^-groups)  there 
is  much  need  for  a  decision,  while  the  grounds  for 
the  decision  are  far  from  clear.  Neither  can  be 
ruled  out  by  the  evidence  of  the  Fathers  as  cer- 
tainly later  than  the  other.  Both  have  early  and 
good  attestation.  On  the  one  hand  we  have  the 
/3-tQxt  supported  by  the  oldest  Greek  manuscript, 
the  Codex  Vaticanus,  commonly  recognised  by 
critics,  even  before  and  apart  from  this  particular 
stage  of  the  controversy,  as  not  only  the  oldest 
but  also  the  most  trustworthy  single  witness  to 
the  New  Testament :  by  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  next 
to  the  Vaticanus  in  age,  and  akin  to  it  in  character, 
yet  also  differing  so  much  that  their  common 
ancestor  must  be  removed  by  several  generations 
from  them,  and  hence  cannot  be  placed  far  below 
the  date  of  the  original  autographs ;  by  some  frag- 
ments  of  early   manuscripts   (notably   those    known 


58         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

as  T  Z  R  H)  ;  by  the  late  but  remarkable  codex  L 
of  the  Gospels,  and  a  few  of  the  minuscules,  which 
are  evidently  descended  from  ancestors  of  the  same 
type ;  and  by  one  of  the  two  main  Coptic  versions 
of  the  New  Testament  (the  Bohairic),  with  some 
support  from  the  other  (the  Sahidic) ;  while  it  also 
appears  that  the  manuscripts  used  by  Jerome  in 
preparing  the  Vulgate  Latin  version  belonged  to 
this  group.  Besides  Jerome,  who  thus  showed  his 
preference  (the  preference  of  a  professed  textual 
scholar)  for  this  type  of  text,  the  great  Greek 
textual  critic,  Origen,  also  mainly  used  manuscripts 
of  this  type,  and  occasionally  Clement  of  Alexandria. 
From  all  these  authorities  it  is  possible  to  form  a 
coherent  text  of  the  New  Testament  with  great 
claims  on  our  acceptance,  backed  as  it  is  by  ancient 
and  trustworthy  witnesses,  some  of  them  being 
certainly,  and  others  very  possibly,  associated  with 
Egypt,  and  especially  with  the  great  literary  centre 
of  that  country,  Alexandria. 

On  the  other  hand  we  have  in  the  (^-group  a 
large  quantity  of  readings,  markedly  divergent  from 
all  the  other  groups,  not  uniformly  or  consistently 
found  in  any  one  set  of  authorities,  but  scattered 
unevenly  among  many  authorities  in  many  parts  of 
the  world.  In  other  words,  there  are  several  manu- 
scripts and  versions  which  frequently  have  readings 
of  this  strongly  marked  class,  but  they  will  seldom 


THE    WESTERN    TEXT    (S    GROUP)  59 

be  found  all  united  in  the  support  of  any  one 
reading.  Hence  it  is  doubtful  whether  they  can 
be  referred  to  a  single  ancestor,  rather  than  to  a 
tendency  to  laxity  in  transcription  manifested  in 
different  places ;  and  it  is  misleading  to  speak  of 
the  ^-group  as  a  single  family  in  the  same  sense  as 
the  a  and  /3-groups  may  be  so  described.  Intrinsi- 
cally, therefore,  with  their  wide  divergences  and 
wavering  attestation,  readings  of  this  type  would 
not,  as  a  rule,  carry  much  weight.  What  gives 
them  authority  is  the  very  early  date  of  the 
witnesses  which  support  them.  So  far  as  manu- 
scripts, indeed,  are  concerned,  they  cannot  rival  the 
/3-group.  The  principal  manuscripts  of  this  group 
are  the  Graeco-Latin  Codex  Bezae  of  the  Gospels  and 
Acts  of  the  sixth  century;  the  Graeco-Latin  Codex 
Claromontanus  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  of  the  same 
period ;  the  Graeco-Latin  Codex  Laudianus  of  the 
Acts  of  the  7th  century;  four  other  late  Graeco-Latin 
codices  of  the  Pauline  Epistles ;  with  occasional 
support  from  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  and  other  uncials, 
and  several  minuscules.  These  authorities  in  them- 
selves would  not  suffice  to  establish  any  great  age 
for  this  type  of  text,  and  the  presence  of  a  Latin 
version  in  so  many  of  them  would  point  to  an 
origin  in  the  West.  But  it  is  also  supported  by  the 
oldest  versions,  the  Old  Latin  and  the  Old  Syriac, 
the  origin  of  which  probably  goes  back  to  the  2nd 


6o        THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

century,  and  predominantly  by  the  Sahidic,  which  is 
probably  the  earliest  Egyptian  version,  and  may  have 
been  made  in  the  third  century.     Of  these  remark- 
able versions  more  will  be  said   in  the  next  lecture 
of    this    course.       But    more    notable    still    is    the 
evidence   of  the   Fathers.     It    is    not   too  much   to 
say  that  all  the  earliest  writers  who  quote  the  New 
Testament  sufficiently  to  enable   us  to  discern  what 
type  of  text  they  used  must  have  used  manuscripts 
of  this  character ;  and  they  are  not  confined  to  any 
single    country.      Justin    Martyr,   Tatian,    Marcion, 
Irenaeus,  in  the   second  century,  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria and  (to  a   less   certain   extent)  Tertullian  at 
the  end  of  the  second  century  and  beginning  of  the 
third,  Cyprian   and  sometimes   even   Origen   in   the 
third,  the    Syriac  writers    Aphraates    and    Ephraem 
and  the  African  Tyconius  in   the  fourth — all  these 
show  by  their  quotations  that  they  used  manuscripts 
akin  in  character  to  the  Old  Latin  and  Old  Syriac 
versions,  and  their  witness   is  spread  over  all  parts 
of  the  Christian  world — Syria,  Egypt,  Africa,  Italy, 
and   Gaul.     Evidence   so   early  and   so  wide-spread 
cannot    be    ignored,   difficult    though   it   may  be   to 
co-ordinate  it. 

This,  then,  is  the  textual  problem  which  confronts 
scholars  at  the  present  day.  Putting  aside  the 
claims  of  the  a-text,  our  old  Received  Text,  as 
being  now  superseded  by  almost  the  common  con- 


THE    TEXTUAL    PROBLEM  6l 

sent  of  critics  of  all  countries,  we  have  on  the  one 
hand  the  |8-text,  comparatively  homogeneous  in 
character,  early  in  attestation,  but  somewhat  limited 
to  the  locality,  or  at  least  the  sphere  of  influence, 
of  Alexandria ;  on  the  other,  the  ^-text,  supported 
by  very  early  and  widely  distributed  attestation,  but 
far  from  homogeneous  in  character,  so  that  it  is 
often  difficult  to  choose  between  two  or  more 
readings  supported  by  authorities  all  of  which  be- 
long to  this  class.  How  can  we  decide  between 
them  ?  or  how  can  we  account  for  the  existence  of 
this  state  of  affairs  ? 

As  will  be  seen  from  the  next  lecture,  there  is 
much  to  be  said  in  support  of  the  (^-text,  and  some 
of  the  best  authorities  on  the  subject  are  prepared 
to  go  far  in  the  advocacy  of  its  claims, — further 
than  I  myself  should  be  prepared  to  go.  The 
problem  is  still  unsolved,  and  various  methods  may 
rightly  be  tried  in  order  to  solve  it.  It  may  be 
suggested,  however,  that  the  key  lies  in  the  history 
of  the  circulation  of  the  Scriptures  during  the  first  two 
centuries  of  their  existence,  of  v/hich  some  sketch  was 
given  at  the  beginning  of  this  lecture.  The  earliest 
Christians  neither  felt  the  need,  nor  had  they  the 
means,  of  securing  precise  accuracy  in  the  transmission 
of  the  documents  of  their  faith.  At  first  they  were 
not  even  sacred  books  at  all.  The  Gospels  were 
simply  narratives  written  by  or  under  the  influence 


62        THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  apostles,  four  of  which  stood  out  slightly  or  not  at 
all  among  a  number  of  others ;  the  Epistles  were 
merely  the  letters  of  St.  Paul  of  St.  Peter,  St.  John 
or  St.  James  or  St.  Jude,  written  to  various  churches 
for  the  purpose  of  instruction  or  exhortation.  There 
was  no  obvious  reason  why  additions,  believed  to 
be  authentic,  should  not  be  made  to  the  narrative 
of  our  Lord's  life,  nor  why  precise  verbal  accuracy 
should  be  insisted  on  in  transcription.  The  second 
coming  of  the  Lord  was  looked  for  shortly ;  it  was 
the  substance  of  the  message  that  mattered,  not 
its  exact  words. 

Hence  it  is  not  surprising  if  variations  crept 
into  the  record  to  a  considerable  extent,  even  in  the 
earliest  times ;  and  when  once  in,  it  was  not  easy 
to  expel  them.  Free  circulation  and  comparison  of 
manuscripts  was  difficult  in  the  early  days,  when 
Christians  were  few  and  widely  scattered,  and  also 
later,  when  repression  was  apt  to  follow  on  too  great 
activity.  Public  copying  and  circulation  of  the 
sacred  books  was  always  precarious,  and  in  times  of 
persecution  the  books  were  a  special  object  of 
search  and  destruction.  Hence  there  was  no  such 
possibility  of  the  establishment  of  a  standard  text, 
and  the  removal  of  all  variations  therefrom,  as  ex- 
isted at  a  later  period  for  the  Jewish  scriptures,  or 
to  some  extent  for  the  classical  writers ;  and  even 
in    these,   as  we    know,  errors    crept    in    plentifully 


THE    ALEXANDRIAN    TEXT  63 

during  the  manuscript  period.  For  the  first  two 
centuries  of  the  existence  of  the  Christian  books, 
the  course  of  their  textual  tradition  runs  through 
irregular  channels,  through  private,  uncorrected, 
copies,  transcribed  often  by  unskilled  hands  in 
villages  of  Egypt  or  Syria  or  Asia,  not  through  an 
ordered  sequence  of  official  copies,  transcribed  in 
great  libraries  by  trained  scribes  and  under  the  eye 
of  an  experienced  corrector. 

Only  in  one  place  can  we  see  that  a  more  favour- 
able state  of  things  may  have  existed.  Alexandria 
was  not  only  the  headquarters  of  trained  scholar- 
ship in  the  Greek  world ;  it  was  also  the  centre  of 
the  Jewish  colony  in  Egypt  and  of  Jewish  learning 
in  the  world  at  large.  There  the  Septuagint  version 
of  the  Old  Testament  had  been  prepared ;  and 
there,  we  may  be  fairly  certain,  was  the  first 
Christian  church  in  Egypt  founded.  By  the  end  of 
the  second  century  we  find  a  strong  Christian  com- 
munity established  there,  with  a  flourishing  Cate- 
chetical School,  of  which  Clement  and  Origen  were 
successive  heads.  There,  if  anywhere,  we  might 
expect  a  pure  text  of  the  Christian  books  to  be 
sought  for  and  preserved ;  and  while  irregularity  and 
indifference  to  precise  accuracy  are  easily  explicable 
in  Syria  and  Asia  Minor  and  Africa,  we  may  fairly 
hope  for  better  things  in  Egypt,  and  especially  in 
such  a  centre  of  literary  scholarship  as  Alexandria. 


64         THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

These  a  priori  considerations  harmonise  well  with 
the  facts  as  we  find  them,  and  as  they  have  been 
described  above.  The  |8-text,  which  Westcott  and 
Hort  call  the  neutral  text,  has  evident  associations, 
as  we  have  seen,  with  Egypt,  and  even  with  the  school 
of  Origen ;  while  the  (^-text  or  texts  may  represent 
the  condition  of  the  Scripture  text  in  the  rest  of 
the  Christian  world.  Consequently  it  seems  not 
unreasonable  to  give  one's  confidence  to  the  former, 
with  its  internal  appearance  of  accuracy  and  its 
external  associations  with  traditions  of  good  scholar- 
ship, rather  than  to  its  irregular  and  eccentric  com- 
petitor, in  spite  of  the  wide  distribution  of  texts  of 
the  latter  character.  At  the  same  time  it  is  not 
fair  to  represent  the  issue  as  finally  closed.  On  the 
contrary,  there  is  an  increasing  tendency  among 
many  scholars,  whose  labours  and  knowledge  en- 
title them  to  all  respect,  to  look  with  favour  on 
readings  attested  by  authorities  of  the  (^-text, 
especially  when  they  are  supported  by  witnesses 
from  both  the  main  groups  of  their  family,  the 
Latin  and  the  Syriac.  To  some  extent  one  may  be 
prepared  to  go  with  them,  and  at  least  to  give 
their  arguments  in  each  case  a  respectful  hearing ; 
for  as  between  these  two  ancient  types  of  text  it  is 
not  likely  that  the  Alexandrian  tradition  is  always 
right  and  its  competitor  always  wrong.  The  very 
ancient  variants  found  in  the  various  authorities  of 


VARIOUS    READINGS  6^ 

the  (^-type  must  always  be  looked  upon  with  interest. 
Right  or  wrong,  they  circulated  largely  in  the 
Christian  Church  of  the  second  century,  and  were 
regarded  as  authentic  by  great  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  such  as  Justin  and  Irenaeus  and  Cyprian ; 
and  sometimes  they  may  embody  authentic  tradi- 
tions, even  though  they  be  no  original  part  of  the 
books  in  which  we  now  find  them. 

In  the  space  of  this  lecture,  it  has  not  been 
possible  to  give  concrete  examples  of  various  read- 
ings characteristic  of  the  several  textual  families 
which  have  been  described.  But  it  may  be  possible, 
in  conclusion,  to  give  some  idea  of  them,  and  of 
the  issues  which  are  involved  in  textual  criticism, 
by  a  reference  to  certain  texts  and  translations 
easily  accessible  and  known  to  many.  Our  familiar 
Authorised  Version,  and  the  Greek  texts  printed  in 
the  ordinary  Greek  Testaments,  represent  the  a-text 
or  Received  Text,  and  that  not  in  its  best  form, 
being  derived,  as  we  saw,  from  a  comparatively 
small  number  of  late  and  casually  chosen  manu- 
scripts. The  /8-text  is  embodied  most  thoroughly 
in  the  Greek  Testament  of  Westcott  and  Hort, 
who  are  its  special  champions ;  but  in  a  modified 
form  it  underlies  our  Revised  Version.  Bishop 
Ellicott,  the  venerable  President  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment Committee,  has  lately  emphasised  the  fact  that 
the   Revisers   did    not  wholly  surrender  themselves 


66        THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 

to  the  guidance  of  Bishop  Westcott  and  Dr.  Hort ;  ^ 
but  their  text  is  in  the  main  due  to  the  adoption  of 
a  similar  view  as  to  the  comparative  merits  of  the 
principal  manuscripts,  and  on  the  whole  it  is  not 
unfair  to  say  that  it  represents  the  kind  of  text 
which  will  be  arrived  at  from  an  acceptance  of  the 
principles  advocated  in  this  lecture.  If  we  are  to 
go  further,  and  recognise  to  any  great  extent  the 
authority  of  the  (^-text,  we  must  be  prepared  for 
much  more  marked  divergences  from  the  traditional 
text ;  for  the  addition  of  one  or  two  sayings  of  our 
Lord  which  have  not  hitherto  found  a  place  in  our 
Bibles ;  for  the  omission  of  several  passages  in  the 
later  chapters  of  St.  Luke  (as  noted  in  the  margin 
of  the  Revised  Version)  ;  and  for  considerable  alter- 
ations in  detail,  especially  in  the  narrative  portions 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

One  thing  alone  we  need  not  fear  ;  and  that  is 
that  any  modifications  of  text  upon  manuscript 
authority  will  affect  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
our  faith.  In  one  form  as  in  the  other,  the  Scrip- 
tures testify  with  equal  clearness  of  Christ,  and  the 
foundations  of  Christianity  stand  firm.  It  is  with 
details,  not  with  essentials,  that  we  have  to  deal ;  and 
in  the  determination  of  them  we  can  surely  let 
ourselves  be  guided  by  the  use  of  the  best  faculties 

1  The  Revised  Version  of  Holy  Scripture,  by  C.  J.  Ellicott,  D.D., 
Bishop  of  Gloucester,  pp.  56-63  (S.P.C.K.,  1901). 


THE    REVISED    VERSION  67 

of  intellect  and  judgment  which  God  has  given  us. 
If,  as  critical  science  assuredly  leads  us  to  believe, 
the  Revised  Version  contains  a  nearer  approxima- 
tion to  the  words  originally  spoken  by  Christ  and 
written  down  by  apostle  or  evangelist,  then  surely 
its  claim  on  our  acceptance  overpowers  even  that 
of  our  venerable  and  beautiful  Authorised  Version. 
At  least  one  may  plead  that  they  should  be  used 
side  by  side,  the  more  accurate  text  being  used  to 
check  and  verify  and  explain  the  more  familiar, 
until  both  alike  are  familiar  and  we  have  come  to 
see  how  great  is  the  preponderance  of  clearness  and 
authenticity  on  the  part  of  that  text,  which,  though 
seeming  new  to  us,  yet  rests  upon  the  oldest  and 
most  trustworthy  authorities.  Fortis  est  Veritas  et 
praevalebit. 


The  Ancient  Versions  of  the   New 
Testament. 


The  New  Testament  is  a  collection  of  books  and 
letters  written  originally  in  Greek,  which  it  seemed 
good  to  the  Christian  Church  to  place  side  by 
side  with  the  Sacred  Books  that  the  Church  had 
inherited  from  the  Jews.  A  generation  after  the 
crucifixion  of  our  Lord  the  Church  had  already 
become  to  a  great  extent  a  Greek-speaking  com- 
munity, and  the  process  was  completed  by  the 
great  catastrophe  of  the  Jewish  War.  The  Church 
of  Jerusalem  practically  ceased  to  exist,  and  the 
Aramaic-speaking  Christianity  of  Palestine  perished 
with  it.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  for  more 
than  two  generations  after  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem by  Titus  the  Christian  Churches  were  com- 
munities of  people  who  spoke  Greek  and  very 
little  else. 

This    is    the    dark    age   of  Christianity.      At  the 


THE    CHURCH     IN    ROME  69 

close  of  the  period,  that  Is  to  say  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  of  our  era,  the 
Catholic  Church  emerges,  undeveloped  indeed, 
but  still  recognisably  the  same  as  the  Church  of 
succeeding  ages  in  its  organisation,  its  theology, 
and  its  sacred  books.  The  New  Testament  of 
the  latter  half  of  the  second  century  is  in  its 
main  features — the  Four  Gospels,  the  Acts,  the 
Epistles  of  Saint  Paul — identical  with  the  New 
Testament  which  we  receive  to-day. 

It  was  about  this  time,  during  the  latter  half 
of  the  second  century,  that  Christian  communities 
sprang  up  in  which  Greek  was  a  foreign  tongue. 
For  a  long  time,  we  do  not  know  how  long,  the 
Church  in  Rome  was  a  Greek-speaking  body. 
The  early  Bishops  of  Rome  had  Greek  names. 
The  letter  of  S.  Clement  of  Rome,  written  about 
the  end  of  the  first  century  to  the  Christians  of 
Corinth,  is  in  Greek.  Justin  Martyr,  who  lived 
at  Rome  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
wrote  in  Greek  ;  so  also  did  his  contemporary 
Hermas,  brother  of  Pope  Pius  I.  But  the 
Christians  of  Lyons  in  Gaul,  and  still  more  cer- 
tainly the  Christians  of  Carthage,  the  capital  of 
the  Roman  Province  of  Africa,  were  folk  to  whom 
Latin  was  the  language  of  daily  life.  Such  com- 
munities would  not  long  be  content  to  have  their 
sacred    books    left    In   a   foreign    tongue,    and     that 


yO  ANCIENT    VERSIONS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  tongue  of  wandering  traders  and  slaves.  The 
provincial  Latin  might  be  rude  and  mixed  with 
Greek  and  Barbarian  idioms,  but  it  was  in  theory 
and  in  the  minds  of  the  provincials  themselves 
the  Imperial  tongue,  in  no  way  unsuitable  for  the 
deepest  thought  and  the  most  solemn  occasions. 
The  course  was  clear,  in  Carthage  certainly,  in 
southern  Gaul  probably,  for  a  Latin  Version  of 
the  Bible. 

The  exact  date  of  the  first  Latin  Version  of 
the  Bible,  or  indeed  of  any  part  of  the  Bible,  is 
uncertain.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the 
Latin  Churches  do  not  seem  to  have  retained 
any  memory  of  this  great  event  in  their  history. 
We  have  no  legend,  no  tradition  to  go  upon, 
and  we  are  reduced  to  building  up  a  theory  from 
scattered  indications.  Under  these  circumstances 
it  is  better  to  begin  at  the  end,  at  a  point  where 
we  have  the  light  of  contemporary  history.  If 
we  know  but  little  about  the  earliest  translations 
of  the  New  Testament  into  Latin,  we  do  know 
the  history  of  the  Revised  Version  which  sup- 
planted them,  the  Version  I  mean  which  is  familiar 
to  us  under  the  name  of  the  Vulgate. 

In  the  last  quarter  of  the  4th  century  the  need 
of  some  measure  of  uniformity  began  to  make 
itself    felt,    and    Pope    Damasus    commissioned    S. 


S.    JEROMES    REVISION  7 1 

Jerome,  the  most  learned  scholar  in  western 
Christendom,  to  prepare  a  Revised  Latin  Version. 
In  accordance  with  this  plan  S.  Jerome  published 
his  text  of  the  Gospels  in  383  a.d.,  the  rest  of 
the  New  Testament  appearing  some  years  after- 
wards. The  version  was  at  once  accepted  by 
S.  Augustine,  and  gradually  made  its  way  into 
general  favour.  Substantially  in  its  original  form 
the  Vulgate  has  been  used  by  the  Western  Church 
for  over  1200  years,  and  it  was  from  the  Vulgate 
that  all  the  early  English  translations  of  the  Bible 
were  made  from  the  days  of  the  Heptarchy  to 
Wycliffe. 

The  texts  which  S.  Jerome's  Revision  were 
designed  to  supersede  are  known  to  modern 
scholars  under  the  general  name  of  the  Old  Latin 
Versions.  The  MSS.  which  preserve  these  pre- 
Vulgate  texts  differ  very  greatly  from  one  another, 
so  much  so  that  S.  Jerome  declared  that  in  his 
day  almost  every  copy  had  a  distinct  type  of  text. 
But  the  general  opinion  of  scholars  now  is  that 
there  were  not  more  than  one,  or  at  the  most 
two,  independent  translations  from  the  Greek. 
The  differences  seem  to  have  arisen  rather  from 
revisions  of  an  already  existing  translation  than 
from  an  entirely  fresh  start. 

The  oldest  form  of  the  Latin  version,  of  which 
enough   has    survived   for    us    to    get   a   clear   idea 


72  ANCIENT    VERSIONS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  its  Style  and  character,  is  that  used  by  S.  Cyprian, 
Bishop  of  Carthage  from  248-258  a.d.,  i.e.  about 
130  years  before  S.  Jerome's  version.  S.  Cyprian 
was  a  most  diligent  and  accurate  quoter,  and  his 
works  are  well  preserved  in  many  ancient  MSS. 
By  comparing  his  quotations  with  our  MSS.  of 
the  N.T.  in  Latin  we  find  that  his  version  survives 
in  a  fragmentary  copy  of  S.  Mark  and  S.  Matthew 
now  at  Turin,  called  Codex  Bobiensis  (^),  and  in 
the  fragments  of  the  Apocalypse  and  of  the  Acts 
contained  in  a  Palimpsest  at  Paris,  called  Codex 
Floriacensis  (/i).  Besides  these  two  we  may 
mention  a  Codex  Palatinus  {e)  at  Vienna,  which 
has  on  the  whole  a  Cyprianic  text,  though  it  is 
not  free  from  mixture  with  later  and  more 
commonplace  elements.  For  the  Apocalypse  we 
also  have  the  Commentary  of  the  late  African 
Primasius. 

The  identification  of  the  African  text  is  too 
important  a  fact  to  be  slurred  over.  As  far  as 
our  fragments  carry  us,  that  is  to  say,  for  the  last 
half  of  S.  Mark,  the  first  half  of  S.  Matthew, 
several  pages  of  the  Acts,  and  practically  the 
whole  of  the  Apocalypse,  we  have  the  text  of 
the  New  Testament  as  read  in  the  capital  of 
Roman  Africa  in  the  year  250  a.d.  It  is  true 
that  our  MSS.  contain  some  fauks,  but  they  are 
faults    of    transcription    such    as    can    for   the   most 


THE    CYPRIANIC    TEXT  73 

part  be  corrected  ;  they  do  not  greatly  hinder  us 
in  the  work  of  reconstructing  the  Greek  text  of 
which  these  fragments  are  a   translation. 

That  is  after  all  our  chief  task — reconstructing 
the  Greek  text, from  which  the  Latin  is  a  translation. 
The  ultimate  use  of  a  version  of  the  N.T.  to  the 
textual  critic  is  that  it  tells  him  what  the  text  of 
the  original  Greek  was  like  at  the  time  of  the 
translation.  And  the  value  of  this  reconstructed 
Greek  to  us  depends  very  greatly  upon  the  age 
to  which  we  can  actually  trace  it  back.  If  we 
are  to  feel  any  confidence  that  this  or  that  phrase 
or  '  various  reading '  is  the  actual  word  of  the 
original  writer,  I  feel  sure  it  must  be  because  we 
can  really  trace  back  the  phrase  in  question  to 
the  earliest  times,  not  because  it  happens  to  have 
commended  itself  to  some  critic  of  the  ancient  or 
modern  world. 

To  come  back  to  S.  Cyprian.  The  recension 
used  by  him  is  the  oldest  that  survives  in  our  MSS., 
but  we  are  able  to  carry  the  history  of  the  Bible 
in  Latin  somewhat  further.  The  Cyprianic  text 
was  itself  not  a  primitive  translation  but  a  revision, 
and  traces  of  a  somewhat  different  type  of  text 
survive  in  the  quotations  of  one  of  S.  Cyprian's 
fellow-bishops,^  Nemesianus  of  Thubunae  on  the 
borders  of  Numidia.    A  generation  before  S.  Cyprian 

^  See  C.  H.  Turner  in  'Jour,  of  Theol.  Studies,  ii.  602-607. 


74  ANCIENT    VERSIONS    OF     NEW    TESTAMENT 

we  have  the  numerous  Biblical  quotations  and 
allusions  in  Tertullian's  works,  but  these  must  be 
used  with  great  caution.  Tertullian  knew  Greek, 
and  there  are  indications  that  he  often  made  his 
quotations  by  direct  translation  from  his  Greek  MS. 
This  much  at  least  is  clear,  that  at  Carthage  in  the 
first  half  of  the  3rd  century  some  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  were  revised  from  Greek  sources. 
Tertullian  quotes  Daniel  from  the  l.xx.  version ;  S. 
Cyprian,  and  his  contemporary,  the  author  of  the 
Computus  de  Pascha  (a.d.  243),  use  Theodotion's 
version,  though  in  S.  Cyprian's  case  there  is  a  large 
admixture  of  lxx.  readings.  On  the  other  hand, 
Tertullian's  quotations  from  Ezekiel  contain  many 
readings  derived  from  Theodotion,  a  curious  cir- 
cumstance which  has  a  parallel  in  some  of  the 
quotations  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  a  little  earlier. 
But  S.  Cyprian's  quotations  from  Ezekiel  present 
what  we  are  accustomed  to  consider  a  pure  lxx. 
text. 

Confusing  as  these  details  are  in  many  respects, 
they  show  at  least  one  thing — that  the  Latin  Bible 
of  250  A.D.  had  a  long  and  complicated  history 
behind  it.  We  need  not  therefore  be  surprised  that 
the  Scillitan  martyrs,  who  suffered  at  Carthage  in 
the  year  180  a.d.,  had  in  their  book-chest 'epistles 
of  Paul,  the  just  man,'  and  apparently  a  copy  of 
the    Gospels    also.      In    the    trial    of  these    martyrs 


LATIN    VERSIONS  75 

there  is  no  hint  that  they  were  acquainted  with 
Greek,  so  it  naturally  follows  that  their  books 
were  in  Latin. 

The  history  of  the  Latin  translation  of  the  Bible 
is  even  more  obscure  in  the  earlier  stages  of  its 
development  in  Europe  than  in  Africa.  We  first 
catch  a  glimpse  of  it  in  Gaul  as  early  as  a.d.  177, 
the  date  of  the  persecution  of  the  Churches  of 
Vienne  and  Lyons.  An  account  of  this  persecution, 
written  by  the  persecuted  Churches  to  their  brethren 
in  Asia  and  Phrygia,  is  preserved  in  Eusebius.^  This 
account  is  in  Greek,  but  Canon  Armitage  Robinson 
has  shown  that  the  author  of  the  letter  was  more 
familiar  with  a  Latin  Version  of  the  N.T.  than 
with  the  original  Greek  text,  and  this  Latin  Version 
was  akin  to  the  recensions  used  by  Tertullian  and 
S.  Cyprian. 2 

A  few  years  later  appeared  the  great  work  of 
S.  Irenaeus,  Bishop  of  Lyons — the  very  place  where 
we  have  seen  reason  to  believe  that  a  Latin  version 
of  the  N.T.  was  current — but  his  confutation  of 
the  Gnostics  was  written  in  Greek,  and  it  is  very 
doubtful  when  the  Latin  translation  of  it  was  made. 
So  far  as  materials  for  comparison  survive,  the 
renderings  of  Biblical  quotations  in  the  Latin  trans- 


1  Eus.  H.E.,  V.  I  fF. 

2  See    T/je   Passion    of  S.  Pcrpetua,    by    ].    Armitage    Robinson 
(1891),  p.  97  ff. 


76  ANCIENT    VERSIONS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

lation  of  Irenaeus  do  not  agree  with  those  familiar 
to  the  writer  of  the  Letter  of  the  Churches  of 
Vienne  and  Lyons.^ 

Thus  S.  Irenaeus  contributes  little  to  our  know- 
ledge, and  after  him  the  history  of  Christianity  in 
Gaul  is  a  blank  for  nearly  a  hundred  and  fifty 
years. 

For  the  text  of  the  N.T.  as  read  in  Italy  about 
A.D.  250  we  have  the  quotations  of  Novatian  and 
the  Roman  correspondents  of  S.  Cyprian.  Then 
comes  another  blank  period,  which  lasts  till  the 
middle  of  the  next  century,  but  from  that  time 
the  evidence  is  continuous,  and  (it  may  be  added) 
complicated.  The  4th  century  was  the  age  of 
mixture,  the  age  when  the  Church  unified  its  con- 
fession of  faith  and  began  to  codify  its  ritual. 
The  final  result  was  a  great  measure  of  uniformity, 
but  it  was  attained  by  much  antecedent  confusion — 
the  pouring  together  of  what  had  previously  been 
separate.  And  so  it  comes  to  pass  that  when  we 
approach  our  MSS.,  the  oldest  of  which  may  be 
assigned  to  the  4th  century  or  the  beginning  of 
the    5th,  we   find   that   very  few  of  them  represent 

■^  The  translator  of  Irenaeus  {Mass.  279)  renders  evSvfxa  ydfxov 
in  Matt.  xxii.  12  by  indumentum  nuptiarum^  but  there  is  reason  to 
believe  that  the  author  of  the  Letter  of  the  Churches  of  Vienne 
and  Lyons  here  read  uestimentum  nuptiale  or  ucstc  nuptiali,  since  he 
uses  the  phrase  ai(r$r^(rLv  evSt'/xaTO?  vvfiff^iKov  (Robinson's  Perpetua, 

P-  99)- 


OLD    LATIN    TEXTS  77 

a  single  type  of  text.  Out  of  more  than  a  dozen 
MSS.  of  the  Gospels  in  Latin  which  may  fairly 
be  classed  as  pre-Vulgate,  one,  Cod.  Bobiensis  (/^), 
as  I  have  already  said,  gives  the  Cyprianic  text  with 
considerable  fidelity  ;  another.  Cod.  Palatinus  (^), 
is  predominantly  Cyprianic ;  another,  Cod.  Ver- 
cellensis  (<^),  gives  in  S.  John  the  text  as  read 
by  Lucifer  of  Cagliari.  The  rest  represent  mixed 
texts,  of  which  we  can  only  say  that  such  texts 
were  current  in  Italy  and  Gaul  (and  especially  in 
N.  Italy)  during  the  4th  and  5th  centuries.  In 
many  instances  the  MSS.  differ  in  the  underlying 
Greek  from  that  represented  by  k  and  S.  Cyprian  ; 
it  is  quite  evident  that  we  have  to  do  with  textual 
as  well  as  literary  revision.  At  the  same  time  they 
all  seem  to  come  from  a  common  stock ;  Novatian 
and  his  friends  stand  about  half  way  between  the 
Africans  and  the  main  body  of  the  European  MSS., 
and  there  are  not  wanting  notable  common  readings 
and  even  common  blunders  which  bind  all  or  most 
of  the  Latins  together. 

To  give  a  most  familiar  instance,  none  the  less 
significant  for  being  so  familiar.  S.  Luke  tells  us 
that  the  shepherds  heard  the  Angelic  host  singing 
"  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace 
€v  apOpcoTToig  evSoKia^  At  least  this  is  what  nearly 
all  our  Greek  MSS.  give  us,  and  the  Eastern 
versions  agree.     Thus  the  last  words  mean  **  Good- 


78  ANCIENT    VERSIONS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

will  among  mtn.''  But  the  Latin  translator  (in 
agreement  with  four  of  our  Greek  MSS.  and  these 
the  oldest)  read  [iv]  avBpwiroL^  evSoKia^,  and  so  the 
Latin  rendering  of  the  half  verse  is  ef  in  terra  pax 
hominibus  honae  uoluntatis^  i.e.  "  and  on  earth  peace 
to  men  of  good  will."  We  need  not  now  consider 
which  of  these  two  readings  is  right — evSoKLa  or 
evSoKiag — what  is  important  for  our  present  purpose 
is  that  the  reading  which  is  not  supported  by  the 
Latin  texts  was  by  far  the  more  common  in  Greek 
MSS.  The  fact  of  the  agreement  of  all  the  Latins 
in  the  phrase  hominibus  bonae  uoliintatis — "to  men 
of  good  will" — is  a  proof  that  the  many  Latin 
texts  are  ultimately  derived  from  a  common  primi- 
tive translation,  and  that  fragments  of  this  common 
primitive  translation  survive  in  our  MSS.  notwith- 
standing corrections  and  revisions. 

But  the  Latin  texts  do  not  always  agree  together, 
and  the  primitive  translation  often  survives  only 
in  a  single  branch.  By  far  the  largest  proportion 
of  ancient  readings  comes  from  the  African  side, 
from  the  Cyprianic  text.  It  is  in  Roman  Africa 
that  the  Greek  element  is  least  obtrusively  present ; 
it  must  have  been  in  Roman  Africa,  of  all  the 
great  centres  of  population,  that  Greek  MSS.  were 
least  abundant.  Consequently  we  often  find  that 
African  texts  give  us  what  is  only  found  elsewhere 
in    some    Oriental    source,    while    the    rest    of    our 


OLD    LATIN    TEXT    IN     BRITAIN  79 

Latin  texts  support  the  common  reading.  In  such 
cases  we  are  justified  in  assuming  the  African  reading 
to  have  been  that  of  the  primitive  Latin  version, 
and  that  in  our  other  Latin  texts  a  supposed  mis- 
take has  been  corrected  out  by  the  aid  of  later 
Greek  MSS.  The  dissimilarity  between  the  African 
Bible  and  that  of  the  Greeks  was  clearly  perceived 
by  S.  Augustine  at  the  end  of  the  4th  century. 
But  he  went  upon  the  theory  that  the  Greek  reading 
as  known  to  him  was  nearly  always  right,  and  so 
he  did  less  than  justice  to  the  faithfulness  of  his 
vernacular  Bible. 

Before  leaving  the  Latin  versions  I  am  sure  you 
will  forgive  me  for  saying  a  word  or  two  upon  the 
texts  which  were  once  current  in  our  own  country. 
S.  Patrick,  himself  a  native  of  Great  Britain,  started 
on  his  missionary  journey  to  Ireland  about  a.d.  405, 
at  a  time  when  S.  Jerome's  revision,  which  we  call 
the  Vulgate,  had  not  yet  supplanted  the  Old  Latin 
in  Britain,  or  even  in  France,  where  S.  Patrick  had 
been  trained.  The  N.T.  therefore  reached  Ireland 
in  an  Old  Latin,  a  pre-Vulgate,  form.  After  the 
conversion  of  Ireland  the  heathen  English  took 
possession  of  the  best  part  of  what  is  now  England 
and  the  Lowlands  of  Scotland,  and  with  the  down- 
fall of  British  Christianity  came  the  disappearance 
of  the  Old  Latin  texts.     When  the  English  in  their 


8o  ANCIENT    VERSIONS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

turn  were  converted  through  the  labours  of  S. 
Augustine  of  Canterbury  and  those  who  came  after 
him,  the  material  things  of  the  Christian  Church — 
paintings,  glass,  and  also  books — had  in  the  first 
instance  to  be  fetched  from  Italy,  and  coming  as 
they  did  from  the  headquarters  of  Christendom, 
the  copies  of  the  Bible  thus  brought  contained  a 
very  pure  Vulgate  text.  By  a  singular  and  happy 
accident  a  copy  of  one  of  these  foreign  Bibles,  made 
at  Monkwearmouth  or  at  Jarrow  early  in  the  8  th 
century,  was  brought  to  Italy  in  the  year  715,  and 
now  rests  in  the  Laurentian  Library  at  Florence. 
The  Codex  Amiatinus^  as  it  is  called,  is  for  modern 
scholars  the  leading  MS.  of  the  Vulgate  ;  and  it  is 
interesting  to  remember  that  it  was  made  in  England 
for  export  to  the  Continent. 

The  Irish  Church,  after  long  hesitation,  laid  aside 
the  usages  which  separated  it  from  the  rest  of 
Christendom,  and  among  other  changes  adopted  the 
Vulgate  in  place  of  the  Old  Latin.  The  most  dis- 
tinctive date  in  a  long  process,  which  only  ended 
with  the  conquest  of  Ireland  by  Henry  IL,  was  the 
adoption  of  the  Roman  tonsure  by  Adamnan,  Abbot 
of  lona,  a  little  before  700  a.d.  The  Vulgate  text 
thenceforward  current  in  Ireland  was  nevertheless 
mixed  with  readings  derived  from  Old  Latin  sources, 
and  a  MS.  of  the  7th  century  is  still  preserved  at 
Trinity  College,  Dublin,  the  text  of  which  is  almost 


SYRIAC    VERSIONS  8  I 

wholly  independent  of  the  Vulgate.  Of  all  the 
monuments  of  Christianity  in  these  islands,  a  few 
gravestones  excepted,  this  Codex  Usserianus  is  the 
one  least  influenced  by  the  coming  of  the  English. 

We  turn  now  from  the  extreme  West  to  the 
East,  from  one  end  of  the  Roman  Empire  to  the 
other.  The  translation  of  the  N.T.  into  Syriac 
took  place  about  the  same  time  as  the  translation 
of  the  N.T.  into  Latin,  and  it  is  almost  as  important 
an  event  in  the  history  of  the  text.  Syriac  is  a 
dialect  of  Aramaic,  akin  to  the  Aramaic  of  Palestine, 
the  language  of  our  Lord  and  His  apostles.  There 
is  therefore  a  special  interest  in  the  renderings 
adopted  by  the  Syriac  translator,  as  many  of  the 
words  used  in  his  translation  of  the  Gospels  must 
have  been  identical  with  those  originally  spoken. 
The  mere  fact  that  the  Syriac  translation  has 
Messiah  for  'the  Christ'  and  Cephas  for  'Peter* 
is  enough  to  show  the  connection  between  the 
Aramaic  of  the  Euphrates  Valley  and  the  Aramaic 
of  Palestine.  At  the  same  time  it  must  not  be 
supposed  that  the  Syriac  versions  are  anything  but 
translations  from  the  Greek,  or  that  Syriac  Chris- 
tianity had  any  special  historical  link  with  the 
primitive  Christianity  of  Palestine.  The  head- 
quarters of  Syriac  Christianity  was  Edessa,  which 
until    the    year    216    a.d.    was    the    capital    of    an 


82  ANCIENT    VERSIONS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

independent  principality  east  of  the  Euphrates  and 
the  Roman  Empire.  Christianity  was  planted  there 
from  the  Greek  city  of  Antioch,  and  not  from 
Palestine  :  to  use  their  own  way  of  putting  it,  the 
bishops  of  Edessa  traced  their  succession  from  Rome 
and  not  from  Jerusalem. 

Edessa,  as  I  have  just  said,  was  an  independent 
principality.  The  language  there  spoken  was  the 
language  of  a  court ;  it  was  also  the  language  of 
commerce  all  the  way  down  the  Euphrates  Valley 
and  in  the  adjoining  provinces,  a  language  with 
literary  and  social  prestige.  When  therefore  Chris- 
tianity began  to  spread  in  Edessa  in  the  latter  half 
of  the  second  century,  the  ground  was  ready  for  the 
work  of  translation.  The  ease  and  fluency  of  the 
earliest  Christian  literature  in  Syriac  shows  that 
Syriac  was  a  literary  language  before  the  Syriac- 
speaking  peoples  came  in  contact  with  Christianity. 

The  point  is  really  important,  because  other 
conditions  prevailed  elsewhere.  Until  the  fourth 
century,  or  at  the  earliest  the  end  of  the  third,  the 
Christian  Egyptians  used  Greek  as  their  ecclesiastical 
language  :  in  their  country  the  language  of  literature 
and  of  the  official  world  was  Greek.  Until  the  end 
of  the  fourth  century  the  Christian  Armenians  used 
Syriac  as  their  ecclesiastical  language  :  in  their 
country  the  language  of  literature  was  Syriac.  But 
Latin    in    the    West    and    Syriac   in   the   East   were 


THE    PESHITTA  83 

literary  languages  before  the  coming  of  Christianity, 
and  they  were  moreover  the  language  of  a  ruling 
class.  Accordingly  into  these  languages,  and  these 
languages  alone,  the  New  Testament  was  translated 
in  the  second  century. 

The  history  of  the  N.T.  in  Syriac  is  in  most 
respects  similar  to  the  history  of  the  N.T.  in  Latin. 
We  have  an  Old  Syriac  Version  of  unknown  age, 
the  MSS.  of  which  differ  considerably  from  one 
another,  partly  owing  to  irregular  revision  from 
later  Greek  MSS.  The  confusion  and  variety 
which  ensued  was  finally  brought  to  an  end  by  the 
triumph  of  an  authoritative  revision,  which  is  now 
known  by  the  name  of  the  Peshitta.  The  Peshitta 
has  been  ever  since  the  fifth  century  the  Vulgate  of 
all  branches  of  the  Syriac-speaking  Church  ;  I  have 
elsewhere  given  reasons  for  believing  that  it  was 
published  under  the  auspices  of  Rabbula,  the  friend 
and  correspondent  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria  and  Bishop 
of  Edessa  from  411  to  435  a.d.^  Rabbula's 
biographer  tells  us  that  on  his  appointment  to  his 
see  "  by  the  wisdom  of  God  that  was  in  him  he 
translated  the  New  Testament  from  Greek  into 
Syriac,  because  of  its  variations,  exactly  as  it  was.'* 
The  new  revision  had  from  the  first  a  victorious 
career.     Backed    by    the    authority   of   the    greatest 


iSee  S.  EphrainCs  Quotations  from  the  Gos/>e/  (Texts  and  Studies, 
vii.  2),  p.  57. 


84  ANCIENT    VERSIONS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

ruler  that  Syriac-speaking  Christianity  has  ever  seen, 
it  rapidly  supplanted  all  its  rivals,  and  only  two 
fragmentary  copies  of  the  Old  Syriac  Gospels  now 
survive.  One  is  in  the  British  Museum,  where  it 
was  discovered  and  edited  by  Dr.  Cureton,  a  former 
Canon  of  Westminster  and  Rector  of  S.  Margaret's  ; 
the  other  is  a  Palimpsest  in  the  Library  of  the 
Convent  of  S.  Catherine  on  Mount  Sinai.  Both  are 
very  ancient ;  the  Sinai  Palimpsest  probably  dates 
from  the  fourth  century,  while  Cureton's  MS.  is  more 
probably  of  the  fifth  century,  i.e.  contemporary  with 
Bishop  Rabbula. 

No  '-  Old  Syriac '  MS.  of  the  Acts  or  Epistles  has 
come  down  to  us,  and  the  Apocalypse  forms  no 
part  of  the  Bible  in  Syriac. 

But  the  analogy  between  the  Latin  and  the  Syriac 
Versions  is  not  complete.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
history  of  the  Gospels  in  Latin  to  correspond  with 
the  influence  of  Tatian's  Diatessaron.  Tatian  was 
an  *  Assyrian,'  i.e.  a  native  of  the  Euphrates  Valley, 
who  studied  at  Rome  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  under  Justin  Martyr.  Towards  the  end  of 
his  career,  about  173  a.d.,  his  views  were  considered 
heretical  at  Rome,  and  he  went  back  to  his  native 
land,  where  he  died.  It  is  not  certain  where  he 
composed  the  Diatessaron^  whether  in  Rome  or  in 
the  East,  and  it  is  even  disputed  whether  it  was 
originally  composed   in   Greek    and    translated    into 


tatian's  diatessaron  85 

Syrlac,  or  whether  it  was  originally  composed  in 
Syriac.  But  it  was  certainly  the  form  in  which  the 
Gospel  was  most  widely  read  by  Syriac-speaking 
people  up  to  the  episcopate  of  Rabbula. 

The  Diatessaron  is  a  Harmony,  a  sort  of  patch- 
work Gospel,  in  v/hich  an  attempt  was  made  to 
combine  the  Four  Canonical  Gospels  into  a  single 
comprehensive  narrative.  It  is  curious  how  popular 
it  was  in  the  East.  Theodoret,  a  contemporary  of 
Rabbula  of  Edessa,  and  himself  Bishop  of  a  neigh- 
bouring See,  tells  us  that  he  found  "  more  than 
two  hundred  such  books  held  in  respect  in  the 
churches  of  our  parts:  and"  (he  adds)  "I  collected 
and  put  them  all  away  and  introduced  the  Gospels 
of  the  four  Evangelists  in  their  place."  ^  The 
same  process  went  on  elsewhere,  and  so  the 
Diatessaron  went  out  of  use.  No  copy  of  it  seems 
ever  to  have  reached  the  great  Nitrian  Library, 
the  source  from  whence  most  of  the  Syriac  MSS. 
in  London  and  Rome  have  come,  and  even  the 
Commentary  which  S.  Ephraim  wrote  on  the 
Diatessaron  is  extant  only  in  an  Armenian  trans- 
lation. 

When  we  were  attempting  to  sketch  the  history 
of  the  N.T.  in  Latin  there  were  many  blank 
intervals,  but  for  the  history  of  the  N.T.  in   Syriac 

^  Haer.  i.  20 :  to.  twv  TerTaptov  cvayyeXicrTiov  avreta-qyayov 
ivayykXia. 


86  ANCIENT    VERSIONS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

from  its  beginning  in  the  second  century  to  the 
publication  of  the  Peshitta  in  the  fifth  the  materials 
simply  do  not  exist.  The  '  Acts  of  Judas  Thomas,' 
a  religious  romance  written  in  Syriac  some  time  in 
the  third  century,  appears  to  quote  the  Gospel  in 
a  form  akin  to  the  Sinai  Palimpsest  and  Cureton's 
MS.  The  other  surviving  remains  of  early  Syriac 
literature  up  to  Rabbula's  time  seem  all  to  use 
the  Diatessaron} 

The  really  important  question,  which  seriously 
affects  the  date  of  the  Old  Syriac  Version,  is 
whether  it  is  earlier  or  later  than  the  first  introduc- 
tion of  the  Diatessaron.  As  I  have  just  said, 
Tatian's  work  in  the  East  lies  between  170  and 
180  A.D.  That  therefore  is  the  date  of  the  original 
Syriac  Diatessaron.  If  the  earliest  Syriac  Version 
of  the  Four  Gospels  be  older  than  the  Diatessaron, 
then  that  Syriac  Version  is  exceedingly  ancient,  a 
true  product  of  the  second  century.  But  if  the 
Gospel  was  first  brought  to  Syriac-speaking  lands 
in  the  form  of  Tatian's  Harmony,  then  the  earliest 
Syriac  Version  may  be  no  earlier  than  the  middle 
of  the  third  century. 

1  The  list  comprises  the  Doctr'me  of  Addai  (3rd  cent.),  the 
Syriac  Doctrine  of  the  Apostles,  published  by  Cureton  (3rd  cent.), 
the  Homilies  of  Aphraates  (337-345  a.d.),  the  genuine  works  of 
S.  Ephraim  (died  373  a.d.),  the  Homilies  of  Cyrillona  (fl.  400 
A.D.).  The  Dialogue  De  Fato  contains  no  quotation  from 
the   N.T. 


THE    SINAI     PALIMPSEST  87 

This  is  a  delicate  critical  question,  and  at  present 
no  definite  conclusions  have  been  attained.  Till 
the  discovery  of  the  Sinai  Palimpsest  in  1893,  the 
defenders  of  the  priority  of  the  Diatessaron  had 
much  the  best  of  the  argument.  But  the  Sinai 
Palimpsest  has  in  many  respects  a  much  better 
text  than  could  have  been  anticipated  from  other 
Syriac  evidence.  It  is,  for  instance,  the  only  Syriac 
authority  for  the  omission  of  the  so-called  '-  last 
twelve  verses '  of  S.  Mark's  Gospel.  In  many 
variations  it  supplies  the  reading  from  which  the 
readings  of  other  Syriac  texts  seem  to  have  been 
ultimately  derived,  and  it  is  free  from  the  ascetic 
'  encratite '  tendency  which  was  generally  charac- 
teristic of  Syriac  Christianity,  a  tendency  which  was 
sufficiently  pronounced  to  make  itself  felt  in  other 
early  Syriac  texts  of  the  Gospel.  In  a  word,  the 
Sinai  Palimpsest  appears  to  represent  an  earlier 
stage  of  Syriac  Christianity  than  is  represented  by 
any  other  known  document,  except  perhaps  the 
Bardesanian  Dialogue  De  Fato.  Until  these  charac- 
teristics of  the  Sinai  Palimpsest  are  explained  away 
it  will  still  be  possible  to  believe  that  the  '  Old 
Syriac  '  version  of  the  Gospels,  of  which  the  Sinai 
Palimpsest  is  so  faithful  a  descendant,  is  older  than 
the  Syriac  Diatessaron — older,  that  is,  than   170  a.d. 

The    Syriac    Diatessaron    often    agrees    with     the 
Old    Syriac    in    its    renderings    of   the    Greek,    but 


88  ANCIENT    VERSIONS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

there  are  many  instances  in  which  they  differ,  and 
it  is  quite  possible  that  in  their  earHest  forms  they 
may  have  been  more  different  still.  It  must  not 
be  forgotten  also  that  only  fragments  of  the  Diates- 
saron  survive,  and  these  have  to  be  gleaned  from 
the  Armenian  translation  of  the  Commentary  of 
S.  Ephraim  and  from  S.  Ephraim's  own  quotations 
and  those  of  his  contemporary,  Aphraates.  A 
striking  instance  of  the  difference  between  the 
two  texts  is  to  be  found  in  Matt,  xxvii.  i6,  17, 
where  the  Old  Syriac  gives  the  name  Jesus  to 
Barabbas,  Pilate  saying,  "Whom  will  ye  that  I 
release  unto  you — Jesus  bar  Abba,  or  Jesus  called 
the  Messiah?"  But  in  the  Diatessaron  there  is  no 
trace  of  this  interesting  addition. 

There  are  versions  of  the  N.T.  in  other  languages 
which  may  fairly  be  called  ancient,  but  they  are 
altogether  on  a  later  and  lower  plane  than  the 
Latin  and  Syriac.  The  history  of  the  Egyptian  or 
Coptic  versions  appears  to  be  bound  up  with  the 
development  of  Monastic  life  in  the  Christian 
Church :  the  earliest  rendering  of  the  N.T.  into 
any  Egyptian  dialect  may  date  from  the  end  of 
the  3rd  century  or  the  beginning  of  the  4th. ^     The 

^  See  especially  the  masterly  tract  by  Ignazio  Guidi  called  Le 
Traduztoni  dal  Copto^  ii>.the  "  Nachrichten  von  der  K.  Gesellschaft 
der  Wissenschaften  zu  Gottingen  "  for  1889,  pp.  49-56. 


THE    LATIN    AND    SYRIAC    VERSIONS  89 

earliest  Armenian  and  Georgian  versions  were  made 
from  the  Syriac :  what  we  now  possess  is  a  revision, 
made  early  in  the  5th  century  by  altering  this  earlier 
version  into  conformity  with  Greek  MSS.  Some- 
thing similar  appears  to  underlie  the  Ethiopic  or 
Abyssinian  version,  but  its  history  has  not  been 
properly  made  out.  The  Gothic  version  of  Ulphilas, 
the  earliest  rendering  of  the  Bible  into  any  Teutonic 
dialect,  is  a  product  of  the  4th  century,  and  had 
a  curious  influence  upon  some  of  the  later  Latin 
texts  current  in  N.  Italy. 

But  the  discussion  of  matters  of  this  kind, 
though  interesting  in  itself,  has  only  a  distant 
bearing  upon  the  direct  criticism  of  the  New 
Testament.  With  the  Latin  and  the  Syriac  in 
their  earlier  forms  it  is  different.  These  versions 
are  primary  authorities  for  determining  the  sacred 
text.  Where  they  agree  we  are  listening  to  the 
consensus  of  the  extreme  East  and  the  extreme 
West  of  the  Roman  world,  speaking  hardly  more 
than  a  generation  after  the  Four  Gospels  had  been 
gathered  together  by  the  Church  into  one  collection. 
Such  a  consensus  is  never  to  be  disregarded,  even 
though  unsupported  by  a  single  surviving  Greek 
MS.  Let  me  give  in  conclusion  a  few  instances  of 
what  I  mean,  a  few  instances  where  these  early 
versions  alone  or  almost  alone  preserve  the  true 
text  of  the  Gospels. 


90  ANCIENT    VERSIONS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

In  the  opening  words  of  the  Parable  of  the  Wise 
and  Foolish  Virgins  we  read,  ^hen  shall  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  he  likened  unto  ten  virgins^  which  took  their  lamps 
and  went  forth  to  meet  the  bridegroom  (Matt.  xxv.  i). 
This  is  the  reading  of  nearly  all  our  Greek  MSS., 
including  the  oldest.  But  a  few  Greek  authorities, 
supported  by  the  Syriac  and  by  the  Latin  versions, 
add  at  the  end  of  the  verse  the  words  and  the  bride. 
The  "Virgins"  went  forth  "to  meet  the  Bridegroom 
and  the  Bride."  Now  this  addition  gives  a  very 
graphic  touch  to  the  picture,  while  at  the  same 
time  it  is  brought  into  better  accordance  with 
Oriental  custom.  The  bridegroom  goes  with  his 
friends  to  bring  away  the  bride  from  her  father's 
home;^  no  one  is  left  at  the  bridegroom's  dwelling 
but  a  few  maidservants  to  keep  the  house.  In  the 
parable  these  maidservants  represent  the  Church, 
while  the  arrival  of  the  wedding  procession  with  the 
bridegroom  and  his  bride  represents  the  coming  of 
Christ.  Christ  is  the  bridegroom  and  the  bride ; 
the  waiting  servants  are  the  Church. 

But  of  all  the  stock  of  Christian  imagery  nothing 
was  more  familiar  than  the  comparison  of  Christ  to 
the  Bridegroom  and  the  Church  to  the  Bride.     Now 


^See  the  account  of  that  unlucky  Wedding  at  Medaba,  de- 
scribed in  I  Mace.  ix.  37  fF.,  when  through  the  attack  of  Jonathan 
and  Simon  the  marriage  was  turned  into  mourning  and  the 
noise  of  their  melody  into  lamentation. 


THE    LATIN    AND    SYRIAC    VERSIONS  9 1 

it  is  the  "Virgins"  in  the  parable  who  obviously 
represent  the  Church ;  how  then  could  they  go 
forth  to  meet  the  Bride,  the  Spouse  of  Christ  ? 
When  the  Bride  had  become  the  stock  metaphor 
for  the  Church,  the  careless  scribe  or  editor  had  a 
strong  temptation  to  leave  it  out  in  the  parable 
where  it  does  not  mean  the  Church ;  and,  as  I  said, 
this  omission  has  actually  been  made  in  all  but  a  very 
few  of  our  Greek  MSS.  But  the  Latin  and  the 
Syriac  versions  kept  the  bride  in  the  wedding  pro- 
cession, and  we  shall  do  well  to  replace  her  there. 

In  the  preceding  example  we  have  been  consider- 
ing a  case  where  the  text  familiar  to  us  has  lost  a 
genuine  and  graphic  detail,  which  has  been  pre- 
served by  the  united  testimony  of  nearly  all  our 
Latin  and  Syriac  texts.  I  shall  now  give  a  couple 
of  instances  where  a  characteristic  difference  be- 
tween parallel  narratives  has  been  obliterated  in 
almost  all  our  authorities  by  the  insertion  of  words 
which  properly  belong  to  one  Gospel  into  the  text 
of  another.  In  the  cases  which  we  are  going  to 
discuss,  the  true  text,  as  I  take  it,  has  been  pre- 
served only  in  the  Sinai  Palimpsest,  representing 
the  Old  Syriac  Version  in  the  East,  and  one  Latin 
or  Graeco-Latin  text  in  the  West. 

S.  Luke  tells  us  that  when  the  messengers  of 
John  the  Baptist  came  to  Jesus  to  ask  whether  He 
were   indeed   he    that    should   come,    Jesus    replied. 


92  ANCIENT    VERSIONS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Go  your  way^  and  tell  John  what  things  ye  have  seen 
and  heard;  the  blind  see^  the  lame  walk,  the  lepers  are 
cleansed^  the  deaf  hear,  the  dead  are  raised  up,  the 
poor  have  the  Gospel  preached  to  them  (Lk.  vii.  22). 
There  is  no  variation  of  any  importance  here  in  our 
MSS.,  and  doubtless  we  have  the  verse  very  much 
as  S.  Luke  penned  it.  The  last  clause  is  especially 
characteristic  of  the  Third  Evangelist — "  the  poor 
have  the  Gospel  preached  to  them,"  or,  as  we  may 
say  to  get  nearer  the  Greek,  "  the  poor  are  evange- 
lised,''  TTTOj^of  euayyeX/^oj^rai.  It  is  S.  Luke  alone 
who  tells  us  of  the  scene  in  the  synagogue  at 
Nazareth,  where  our  Lord  reads  the  passage  of 
Isaiah  which  speaks  about  "  preaching  the  Gospel 
to  the  poor"  (Lk.  iv.  18),  and  indeed  this  verb 
eva'yyiK'iX^ea-dai  occurs  ten  times  in  his  Gospel.  It 
is  therefore  remarkable  to  find  that  the  only 
passage  in  the  other  Gospels  where  the  verb  occurs 
is  in  the  parallel  passage  in  S.  Matthew.  Accord- 
ing to  the  ordinary  text,  the  answer  of  Christ  to 
the  disciples  of  John  is  the  same  in  S.  Matthew  as 
in  S.  Luke  (Matt.  xi.  4,  5  =  Lk.  vii.  22).  But  Cod. 
Bobiensis  {k),  the  best  representation  of  the  African 
Latin,  and  the  Sinai  Palimpsest,  the  best  representa- 
tive of  the  Old  Syriac,  in  company  with  Clement 
of  Alexandria^  and  (apparently)   the    Diatessaron'^ — 


1  Paed.  I.  X.  90  (151). 

2  See  Ephraim's   Commentary  {Moesinger,   100). 


THE    LATIN    AND    SYRIAC    VERSIONS  93 

these  four  alone  among  our  authorities  for  the 
text — omit  in  S.  Matthew  the  clause  irraiyo^i  euay- 
yeklX^ovrai,  *'  the  poor  have  the  Gospel  preached  to 
them."  I  cannot  doubt  that  they  are  right  in  so 
doing.  The  clause  belongs  to  S.  Luke,  and  is  char- 
acteristic of  his  Gospel :  it  does  not  belong  to  S. 
Matthew,  it  is  not  characteristic  of  his  Gospel,  and 
its  presence  there  would  lead  to  very  unsafe  conclu- 
sions as  to  what  was  contained  at  this  point  in  the 
common  source  of  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Luke.  We 
may  reject  the  words,  not  on  a  ready-made  theory 
of  what  ought  or  ought  not  to  be  in  the  Gospel 
according  to  S.  Matthew,  but  upon  the  authority 
of  the  oldest  Latin  and  the  oldest  Syriac  texts. 

One  more  instance  and  I  have  done.  Whatever 
theories  we  may  hold  about  the  authorship  and  com- 
position of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  S.  John,  one  thing  is  clear:  the  Evangelist 
was  the  very  reverse  of  anxious  to  make  his  diction 
harmonise  verbally  with  the  other  Gospels.  Very  few 
of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospel  according  to 
S.  John  are  given  in  the  other  Gospels  also.  So 
much  is  this  the  case,  that  manv  students  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  both  in  ancient  and  in  modern 
times,  have  supposed  that  the  Evangelist  actually 
avoided  what  had  been  already  told :  his  aim  was 
to  supply  the  lines  previously  left  out  in  the  Portrait 
of  the  Lord. 


94  ANCIENT    VERSIONS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

In  this  Gospel  there  is  an  account  of  a  supper  at 
Bethany  where  Martha  served  and  Mary  anointed 
the  feet  of  Jesus.  The  story  appears  also  to  be 
told  in  S.  Mark  and  S.  Matthew,  but  with  many 
variations  of  time  and  circumstance.  The  account 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel  must  have  been  based  on 
quite  a  different  tradition,  and  accordingly  the  words 
of  our  Lord  are  given  differently.  One  sentence, 
however,  is  the  same  in  S.  Mark  and  S.  John,  as 
given  in  almost  all  our  authorities  :  this  is  For  the 
poor  ye  have  always  with  you,  but  me  ye  have  not 
always  (Joh.  xii.  8  =  Mk.  xiv.  7,  Matt.  xxvi.  11). 
The  sudden  verbal  agreement  in  the  midst  of  so 
much  material  divergence  is  extremely  striking.  It 
is  therefore  a  matter  of  no  ordinary  interest  to  those 
who  are  studying  the  mutual  relations  of  our 
Gospels  to  find  that  the  words  I  have  just  quoted 
are  omitted  from  the  text  of  S.  John  in  the  Sinai 
Palimpsest  and  in  the  Graeco-Latin  Codex  Bezae 
(D),  our  great  5th  century  MS.  at  Cambridge. 
According  to  this  our  Lord's  only  answer  to  the 
complaint  of  Judas  is.  Suffer  her  to  keep  it  against 
the  day  of  my  burying.  The  removal  of  the  words 
about  the  poor  takes  away  the  sudden  and  inex- 
plicable literary  resemblance  at  this  point  between 
S.  John  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels :  here  again, 
therefore,  we  may  believe  that  the  Syriac  Palimpsest 
from  the  East  and  the  Graeco-Latin  MS.  from  the 


THE    LATIN    AND    SYRIAC    VERSIONS  95 

West  have  preserved  the  true  text.  These  two 
have  remained  free  from  a  harmonistic  interpolation 
which  has  invaded  the  rest  of  the  extant  texts  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel. 

These  three  instances  will,  I  trust,  sufficiently 
illustrate  the  main  point  of  what  I  have  attempted 
to  say  this  afternoon.  We  have  seen  that  owing  to 
the  political  conditions  of  the  Roman  Empire  the 
New  Testament  was  very  early  translated  from  the 
Greek  into  two  languages,  and  into  two  only — 
Latin  in  the  West  and  Syriac  in  the  East.  These 
versions  may  be  placed  with  confidence  in  the  2nd 
century ;  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  Bible  was  trans- 
lated into  any  other  language  before  the  early  years 
of  the  4th  century.  Our  Latin  and  Syriac  MSS. 
are  not  older  than  the  end  of  the  4th  century,  but 
in  spite  of  later  revision  from  the  Greek  some  of 
them  do  contain  a  fairly  faithful  image  of  the 
original  translation.  By  the  help  of  these  early 
translations,  and  especially  where  East  and  West 
agree,  we  are  often  able  to  restore  the  true  text  in 
places  where  our  Greek  MSS.  give  a  perverted 
reading.  The  Latin  Church  of  Roman  Africa  and 
the  Syriac  Church  of  Edessa  have  both  of  them 
perished,  but  through  their  vernacular  versions  of 
the  New  Testament  they  being  dead  yet  speak 
to  us. 


The  History  of  the  Canon  of  the 
New  Testament. 


Characteristics  of  the  History. — Four  influences  : 
(i)  Christian  worship;  (2)  Literary  habit;  (3) 
Translation  ;  (4)  Controversy  (Gnostic  sects  ;  the 
Muratorian  Fragment). 

The  evidence  of  Eusebius  as  to  the  Canon  (*  the 
acknowledged  Books,'  '  the  disputed  Books  ').  The 
two  periods  of  the  History. 

I.  The  period  till  about  200  a.d.  Range  of  the 
N.T.  Canon  at  the  close  of  this  period  ;  Irenaeus 
(reasons  for  the  importance  of  his  evidence)  ;  the 
N.T.  of  Irenaeus.  Recognition  of  Books  and 
of  groups  of  Books. 

(i)  The  collection  of  the  Four  Gospels.  Irenaeus  ; 
the  Shepherd  of  Hernias  ;  Heracleon  ; 
Tatian's  Diatessaron  ;  Justin  Martyr 
(Papias). 


SUMMARY  97 

(2)  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

(3)  The  Pauline  Epistles.     Irenaeus  ;  Theophilus 

of  Antioch ;  Marcion  ;  Polycarp  and  Ignatius. 

II.  The  period  200 — 400  a.d. 

(i)  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  (a)  Eastern 
Churches  :  Pantaenus,  Clement,  Origen, 
Eusebius  ;  the  Syriac  Vulgate  ;  the  Antiochene 
School;  Amphilochius.  (^)  Western  Churches: 
Clement  of  Rome  ;  Hippolytus  ;  Muratorian 
Fragment  ;  Caius  ;  Irenaeus ;  Tertullian, 
Cyprian,  the  '  Cheltenham  '  list ;  Jerome  ; 
Augustine. 

(2)  The  Apocalypse,     (a)  Irenaeus  ;  Theophilus  ; 

Melito  of  Sardis ;  Justin  Martyr.  (b) 
Influence  of  Montanism  ;  Caius  ;  the  Alogi  ; 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria  ;  (c)  Eastern  (Greek) 
Churches  ;  Western  Churches. 

Reasons  for  divergence  of  earlier  and  later 
views. 

(3)  The  Catholic  Epistles.     Early  Syriac  Church 

(*  Doctrine  of  Addai '). 
(a)   I  Peter,  i  John. 
(|8)  James,    i    Peter,    i    John.      Reception    of 

James  into  the  Canon. 
(7)  James,   i   Peter,   i   John,   2,  3  John,  Jude, 

2  Peter. 

G 


98  HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Reception     of    Jude     into     the     Canon  ; 

about  200  A.D.  ;  Origen  ;  Carthage  ; 

reasons    for    later    doubts   (Didymus, 

Jerome). 
Reception  of  2  Peter  into  the  Canon  ;  lack 

of  early  references  ;  Origen  (Clement); 

the    Fourth    Century  ;    causes   of  its 

reception. 

Recognition   of  the   full   Canon   of   N.T.   in    (i) 
Eastern  (Greek)  Churches  ;  (2)  Western  Churches. 

Conclusion. 


CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT        99 


The  History  of  the  growth  of  the  Canon  of  the 
New  Testament  is  a  complicated  subject.  Its  full 
discussion  presupposes  some  knowledge  of  the 
history  of  the  early  Church  and  of  the  character- 
istics and  the  environment  of  the  chief  writers  in  the 
first  centuries ;  and  it  involves  a  somewhat  minute 
investigation  of  references,  or  supposed  references,  in 
the  Fathers  to  the  words  of  the  New  Testament. 
One  brief  lecture,  therefore,  must  necessarily  leave 
unsaid  very  much  even  of  what  lies  on  the  surface 
of  the  subject.  Not  seldom  statements  may  seem 
obscure  to  those  who  are  not  familiar  with  the 
outlines  of  Church  History.  And,  what  is  perhaps 
even  more  important,  any  discussion  of  different 
interpretations  of  the  evidence  must  be  ruthlessly 
excluded.  We  must  keep  to  the  main  road,  and 
not  allow  ourselves  to  be  allured  into  bye-paths 
however  attractive. 

The  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  is  the  collec- 
tion of  those  Books  which  have  been  recognized 
by  the  general  opinion  of  Christian  men  as  apostolic 
and  therefore  as  authoritative. 

The  word  Canon  in  application  to  the  Sacred 
Books  may  be  taken  (i)  in  a  passive  sense,  as  signi- 
fying the  list  of  Books  which  are  marked  out;  or  (2) 


lOO       HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

in  an  active  sense,  as  denoting  those  Books  which 
themselves  mark  out  the  rule  of  Christian  faith 
and  life.  We  need  not  stop  to  discuss  the  question 
which  of  these  two  conceptions  is  the  more  original. 
Both  of  them  were  probably  in  early  times  connected 
with  the  term. 

The  history  of  the  formation  of  the  Canon  is 
the  history  not  of  a  series  of  events  but  of  a  long 
continuous  process.  The  Canon  is  not,  as  we 
might  have  expected,  the  outcome  of  any  definite 
decision.  It  was  never  the  subject  of  any  ordinance 
of  a  General  Council.  Like  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
it  was  the  result,  gradually  and  informally  attained, 
of  the  activity  of  the  Christian  consciousness,  of 
the  thought  and  the  practice  of  the  whole  body 
of  the  Faithful. 

This  process  of  a  selection  of  certain  Books 
from  a  larger  number  and  their  recognition  as  a 
*  divine  library '  was  not  new.  It  was  indeed  a 
repetition — we  may  almost  say  a  continuation.  The 
Christian  Church  inherited  from  the  Jewish  Church 
the  Old  Testament  as  its  earliest  Bible,  and  the 
completion  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament 
did  not  belong  to  a  distant  past.  "  The  measure 
of  the  completeness  of  the  Canon  had  scarcely  been 
reached,  when  '  the  fulness  of  the  time  came.' 
The  close  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  brings  us  to  the 
threshold    of   the    Christian    Church.      The    history 


CHRISTIAN    WORSHIP  lOI 

of    the    Canon,    like    the    teaching    of    its  inspired 

contents,   leads   us  into   the  very   presence  of  Him 

in   Whom    alone    we    have    the    fulfilment  and   the 

interpretation  of  the  Old   Testament,  and  the   one 
perfect  sanction  for  its  use."  ^ 

Taking  a  broad  view  of  the  history  of  the  Canon 
of  the  New  Testament,  we  may  say  that  four  influ- 
ences were  at  work. 

(i)  The  Custom  of  Christian  Worship. — 
The  assemblies  for  Christian  worship  grew  out  of, 
and  were  modelled  upon,  the  worship  of  the  Syna- 
gogues. In  the  Synagogue  lessons  from  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets  were  read,  and  were  followed  by  a  *  dis- 
course of  exhortation.'  ^  In  the  earliest  times  in  the 
Christian  assemblies  an  Epistle  just  received  from 
an  Apostle  would  be  read  (i  Thess.  v.  27,  Col.  iv. 
16;  comp.  Eus.  H.E.  iv.  23),  and  the  place  of  the 
exhortation,  we  may  conjecture,  taken  by  an  account 
of  some  part  of  our  Lord's  teaching,  or  of  the 
Passion  or  the  Resurrection.  In  the  first  half  of  the 
second  century  at  Rome,  as  we  learn  from  Justin 
Martyr  {Jp.  i.  67),  "the  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles, 
[i.e.  the  Gospels]  or  the  writings  of  the  Prophets 
[were]   read."     Thus   Christian  people  grew   accus- 


1  Bp.  Ryle,  The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  preface,  p.  ix.  f. 

2  Schiirer,  History  of  the  Jewish  People,  Eng.  Trans.,  11.  II.  p.  82. 
Compare  Luke  iv.  17  fF.,  Acts  xlii.  1 1;  fF. 


I02       HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

tomed  to  regard  the  Apostolic  writings  as  '  Scripture/ 
in  the  same  sense  as  the  Old  Testament ;  and  litur- 
gical custom,  varying  doubtless  in  different  churches, 
set  its  seal  on  certain  Christian  Books  and  groups  of 
Books  as  worthy  of  special  reverence  and  obedience. 

(2)  Literary  Habit. — As  time  went  on,  a 
Christian  literature  grew  in  volume  and  was  circu- 
lated in  the  different  churches.  Christian  writers 
wove  into  their  own  written  words  the  familiar  phrases 
of  the  Apostolic  writers,  and  in  a  few  cases  expressly 
quoted  them.  Thus  they  registered  the  decisions  of 
popular  usage  ;  they  tended  to  co-ordinate  the 
customs  of  different  churches  and  to  give  them 
permanence. 

(3)  Translation. — In  the  second  century  it 
became  necessary  to  translate  the  Apostolic  Books, 
written  in  Greek,  into  Syriac  and  into  Latin,  possibly 
also  into  the  native  dialects  of  Egypt.  The  range  of 
Books  so  translated  formed  a  Canon  of  the  New 
Testament  in  these  districts. 

(4)  Controversy. — When  heresies  arose  and 
heretical  sects  became  organized  bodies,  when  the 
controversy  between  these  sects  and  the  Catholic 
Church  found  expression  in  tracts  and  treatises,  the 
question  as  to  the  limits  of  the  authoritative  Books 
became  a  pressing  one.  The  sects  claimed  that  they 
represented  the  true  tradition  of  the  Apostles.  The 
Catholic   Church  challenged   and   denied  the   claim. 


THE    MURATORIAN    FRAGMENT  lOJ 

The  question  thus  arose,  to  what  Books  in  this  dis- 
pute could  appeal  be  made  ?  Hence  Councils  in 
particular  Churches,  as  some  evidence  shews,  ^  dis- 
cussed the  matter  ;  and  individual  writers  with  more 
or  less  formality  and  definiteness  expressed  their 
opinion.  In  this  way  the  general  voice  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  i.e.  the  different  local  churches 
throughout  the  world  which  were  in  communion  with 
each  other,  and  from  which  the  sects  had  broken 
away,  was  both  expressed  and  controlled. 

To  one  such  definite  statement  it  will  be  con- 
venient to  refer  at  this  point — the  Muratorian  frag- 
ment. It  derives  its  name  from  the  Italian  scholar, 
Muratori,  who  published  it  in  1740.  It  is  evidently 
a  rude  Latin  translation  of  a  Greek  original.  That 
original  was  probably  drawn  up  at  Rome  late  in  the 
second  century.  Bishop  Lightfoot  ^  has  made  it 
probable  that  the  original  Greek  was  written  in  verse 
as  a  kind  of  memoria  technica^  and  that  the  writer  was 
Hippolytus,  a  learned  and  voluminous  author,  who 
seems  as  Bishop  to  have  presided  over  the  foreign 
congregations  at  Rome.  The  Books  of  the  New 
Testament  which  are  explicitly  recognized  in  it  are 


^  Si  non  ab  omni  concilio  ecclesiarum  etiam  vestrarum  inter 
apocrypha  et  falsa  judicaretur  {Tcfi.  de  Pud'ic.  x.).  Tertullian  is 
speaking  as  a  Montanist  to  Catholic  Christians  ;  hence  the  word 
*  vestrarum.' 

2  St.  Clement  of  Rome ^  ii.  pp.  405  IF. 


I04       HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  following  :  the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts,  the 
Pauline  Epistles  (not  including  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews),  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John,  and  two,  if 
not  the  three.  Epistles  of  St.  John.^ 

The  Muratorian  Fragment  illustrates  several 
important  points,  (a)  It  shews  with  what  interest 
and  care  the  question  of  the  Canon,  to  use  the 
later  term,  was  treated  at  the  end  of  the  second 
century  in  the  Church  at  Rome — a  Church  naturally 

1  In  reference  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  the  writer  notes  how 
"  firmly  John  sets  forth  each  statement  [about  the  Lord]  in  his 
Epistle  also,"  quoting  i  John  i.  i  ff.  Later  in  the  Fragment, 
after  mentioning  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude,  he  refers  to  "  the  couple 
[of  Epistles]  bearing  the  name  of  John  "  as  "  accepted  in  the 
Catholic  Church."  The  context  seems  to  suggest  that  '  the 
couple  '  are  the  two  short  Epistles  which  bears  St.  John's  name. 
If  this  interpretation  is  correct,  the  three  Epistles  of  St.  John  are 
included  in  the  Muratorian  list. 

Neither  of  the  Epistles  which  bear  the  name  of  St.  Peter  have 
a  place  in  the  Fragment  as  it  stands.  The  Fragment,  however,  is 
mutilated  at  the  beginning  ;  it  commences  in  the  middle  of  a 
sentence  which  clearly  concluded  what  the  writer  had  to  say 
about  St.  Mark.  It  is  highly  probable  that,  just  as  the  writer 
mentioned  i  John  in  connexion  with  St.  John's  Gospel,  so,  in  the 
portion  of  his  work  now  lost  which  dealt  with  St.  Mark,  he 
quoted  i  Pet.  v.  1 3  in  reference  to  St.  Mark's  relation  to  St.  Peter 
at  Rome,  as  Papias  appears  to  have  done.  It  should  be  added 
that  Prof  Zahn  restores  a  passage  of  the  Fragment  thus  (the  words 
which  he  adds  being  in  square  brackets)  :  "  The  Apocalypse  also  of 
John,  and  of  Peter  [one  Epistle,  which]  only  we  receive:  [there  is 
also  a  second]  which  some  of  our  friends  will  not  have  read  in  the 
Church."  But  such  a  restoration  cannot  be  regarded  as  more  than 
an  ingenious  conjecture. 


THE    FORMATION    OF    THE    CANON  IO5 

regarded  by  other  churches  as  a  centre  and  as  a 
standard  (Iren.  iii.  3).  (^b)  It  shews  how  it  was 
under  the  pressure  of  controversy  that  what  was  a 
matter  of  devotional  instinct  and  usage  became  a 
matter  of  formal  discussion.  The  Fragment  is 
evidently  a  controversial  document.  It  mentions 
by  name  certain  heretics,  together  with  the  books 
which  they  held  sacred,  and  with  these  heretics  it 
contrasts  the  Catholic  Church,  from  whose  collection 
of  Apostolic  Books  the  books  of  the  sects  must  be 
rigorously  excluded.  "For,"  it  is  said,  "it  is  not 
fitting  that  honey  be  mixed  with  gall."  (r)  It 
shews  that  the  formation  of  the  Canon  was  a  pro- 
cess of  selection.  The  need  of  excluding  the 
books  of  the  sectaries  called  attention  to  the 
question  of  certain  orthodox  books  which  were 
challenging  admission  within  the  circle  of  authori- 
tative Scriptures  —  The  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  to 
mention  only  one  of  these,  the  Pilgrim's  Progress 
of  the  early  Church,  a  book  actually  quoted  as 
Scripture  by  Irenaeus  (iv.  20).  "The  Shepherd," 
so  the  Fragment  decides  the  claim,  "  ought  indeed 
to  be  read  [i.e.  studied  in  private],  but  it  cannot 
to  the  end  of  time  be  publicly  read  in  the  Church 
to  the  people,  either  among  the  Prophets,  whose 
number  is  complete,  or  among  the  Apostles." 

Such  were  in  the  main  the  influences  which  con- 
ditioned the  gradual  process  whereby  the  Books  of 


I06        HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

the  New  Testament  were  placed  in  a  unique  position 
of  sacredness  and  of  authority.  The  history  of 
the  Canon  is  not  a  matter  of  dry  and  legal  research. 
It  only  needs  an  effort  of  the  historical  imagination, 
and  we  see  that  it  is  closely  related  to  the  daily 
life  of  our  elder  brethren  in  Christ.  We  picture 
them  in  the  assemblies  for  worship,  reading,  listening, 
preaching  ;  at  home  studying,  and  in  a  few  cases 
writing  ;  and  so  gradually  coming  to  recognize  and 
to  use  the  same  New  Testament  which  we  recognize 
and  use  to-day.  The  formation  of  the  Canon  was 
an  element,  one  of  the  most  important  and  fruitful 
elements,  in  the  devotional  life  of  the  early  Church. 

But  it  is  time  to  go  into  detail.  The  best  starting 
point  for  an  historical  review  of  the  collection  of  the 
several  groups  of  Books  is  the  well-known  passage, 
or  pair  of  passages,  in  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of 
Eusebius,  in  which  he  deals  with  the  subject  of  the 
Canon  {H.E.  iii.  3,  25).  The  life  of  Eusebius 
extended  approximately  from  270  to  340  a.d.  Early 
in  the  fourth  century  he  witnessed  the  horrors  of  the 
last  great  persecution.  It  was  a  characteristic  of  this 
final  crusade  of  the  empire  against  the  Church  that 
its  leaders  followed  the  statesman-like  policy  of 
endeavouring  to  destroy  the  sacred  buildings  and 
the  sacred  Books  of  the  Church.  "  With  mine  own 
eyes,"   writes  Eusebius  {H.E.  viii.  2),  "  I  beheld  the 


EUSEBIUS  107 

Houses  of  Prayer  being  plucked  down  and  razed 
to  the  ground,  and  the  divine  and  sacred  Scriptures 
in  the  public  market  places  being  consigned  to  the 
flames."  This  policy  of  Thorough  had  an  effect  in 
regard  to  the  subject  under  discussion  far  indeed 
from  the  persecutors'  intention.  It  raised  the 
practical  question  what  were  the  Books  which  no 
Christian  man,  in  simple  loyalty  to  his  faith,  could 
surrender  to  the  enemy.  Eusebius  had  doubtless 
faced  this  question ;  and  his  statements  as  to  the 
limits  of  the  Canon  cannot  but  embody  the  opinions 
which  he  and  his  fellow-Christians  formed  at  the 
dreadful  crisis  of  the  Diocletian  persecution.  In 
order  to  estimate  aright  the  significance  of  Eusebius' 
treatment  of  the  ^Canon,  we  must  further  remember 
that,  as  a  leading  Bishop  in  the  years  which  lay  on 
either  side  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  and  as  the 
spiritual  adviser  of  Constantine,  he  was  brought  into 
contact  with  nearly  all  the  prominent  ecclesiastics  of 
the  time,  and  was  well  acquainted  with  contemporary 
thought ;  and  moreover,  that,  deficient  as  he  was 
in  the  power  of  arranging  and  interpreting  facts, 
his  knowledge  of  the  Christian  literature  of  times 
earlier  than  his  own  was  practically  exhaustive. 

Eusebius,  then,  divides  those  Christian  writings 
which  had  any  sort  of  claim  to  be  reckoned  among  the 
Scriptures  of  the  New  Covenant  into  three  groups. 
Below  the  lowest  of  these  three  groups,  the  spurious 


I08   HISTORY  OF  CANON  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

books    (^e.g.    the    y^cts    of    Paul^    the    Apocalypse    of 
Peter)^  there  is  a  yet  inferior  class,  the  heretical  books 
(^e.g.  the   Gospel  of  Peter ^  the  Acts  of  John).      With 
these  two  lowest  groups  we  need  not  further  concern 
ourselves. 

The  highest  group  consists  of  the  Books  which 
are  '  acknowledged,'  i.e.  '  the  holy  quaternion  of 
the  Gospels,'  the  Acts,  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul 
(including  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  though,  as 
Eusebius  notes  elsewhere  (H.E.  iii.  3),  some  had 
rejected  it  inasmuch  as  its  Pauline  authorship  had 
been  disputed  by  the  Roman  Church,  and  though 
he  himself  elsewhere  (H.E.  vi.  13)  includes  it 
among  the  '  disputed  books  ').  "  Next  to  these,'* 
Eusebius  continues,  "  we  must  maintain  the  current 
former  Epistle  of  John,  and  likewise  that  of  Peter." 
The  list  ends  with  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  though  a 
note  of  hesitation  is  added ;  and  in  fact  he  also 
mentions  the  Apocalypse,  here  also  with  an  expression 
of  uncertainty,  among  the  '  spurious  '  books. 

The  second  group  comprehends  those  Books 
"  which  are  disputed  but  which  are  nevertheless 
familiar  to  most  persons  " — "  the  so-called  Epistle  of 
James,"  that  of  Jude,  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter, 
and  "  the  so-called  Second  and  Third  Epistles  of 
John,  whether  they  be  the  work  of  the  Evangelist 
or  it  may  be  of  some  other  John." 

These  two  groups — the  *  acknowledged  '  and  the 


THE    "acknowledged*'    BOOKS  IO9 

'  disputed  Books  ' — correspond  to  the  two  periods 
into  which  the  whole  history  of  the  Canon  may  be 
divided.  The  earlier  period  reaches  from  the  date 
of  rise  of  an  Apostolic  literature  to  the  end  of  the 
second  or  the  beginning  of  the  third  century. 
The  later  period  comprises  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries.  We  will  consider  the  two  periods 
separately. 

I.  During  the  earlier  period  the  '  acknowledged 
Books '  gained  their  pre-eminent  position.  In  the 
first  place  the  separate  Books  were  recognized  as 
Apostolic  and  authoritative.  Secondly,  the  Gospels 
and  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  were  formed  into  collec- 
tions, and  these  collections  were  co-ordinated  with 
the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament.  Before  we  trace 
the  growth  of  these  collections  of  Books,  it  is 
important  that  we  should  recognize  how  clear  and 
convincing  the  testimony  is  as  to  the  supreme 
position  held  towards  the  close  of  this  period  by 
the  Gospels,  the  Acts,  the  Pauline  Epistles,  the 
First  Epistles  of  St.  Peter  and  of  St.  John  respec- 
tively, and  the  Apocalypse. 

In  the  first  three  quarters  of  the  second  century 
the  literature  of  the  Christian  Church  was  unsystem- 
atic and  limited.  It  consists  chiefly  of  letters  and 
apologies,  the  latter  being  treatises  addressed  to 
those  without,  in  which,  from  the  very  nature  of  the 


IIO       HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

case,  there  was  but  little  opportunity  for  quotations 
from,  or  direct  references  to,  the  Apostolic  writings. 
But  during  the  last  twenty  years  of  the  century  a 
strictly  theological  literature  arose  in  the  Church. 
Thus  at  Alexandria  we  have  the  voluminous  works 
of  Clement  ;  at  Carthage  the  no  less  voluminous 
and  the  even  more  varied  works  of  Tertullian,  the 
earliest  Latin  writer  of  Christendom  ;  at  Lyons 
in  South  Gaul  the  controversial  treatise  of  Irenaeus. 
I  take  the  last  named,  Irenaeus,  as  a  type.  What  is 
said  of  him  in  regard  to  his  use  of  the  Books  of 
the  New  Testament  might,  I  believe,  be  said  with 
equal  truth  of  Clement  and  of  Tertullian. 

The  character  of  the  treatise  of  Irenaeus  which  has 
come  down  to  us  is  sufficiently  clear  from  the  title 
"  Of  the  Refutation  and  Overthrow  of  Knowledge 
falsely  so-called  Five  Books."  It  is  directed  against 
the  Gnostics,  those,  that  is,  who  claimed  to  be 
an  aristocracy  in  regard  to  knowledge  (gnosis). 
The  treatise  can  be  dated  with  considerable  pre- 
cision. The  third  book  was  written  while  Eleutherus 
was  Bishop  of  Rome,  i.e.  before  the  year  190  a.d. 
Irenaeus,  whose  life  extended  approximately  from 
130  to  200  A.D.,  is  a  writer  of  extreme  importance, 
for  several  reasons. 

(^a)  His  is  the  first  book  on  a  large  scale  in  which 
a  Christian  speaks  to  Christians  and  deals  with 
matters  of  Christian  doctrine  ;    the  first,  that  is,  in 


IRENAEUS  III 

which    we    should    expect    a    detailed    and    explicit 
appeal  to  the  Apostolic  literature. 

(J?)  Irenaeus  was  a  travelled  man.  Like  Ulysses 
"  he  had  seen  the  cities  of  many  men  and  known 
their  mind."  A  native  of  Asia  Minor,  he  lived 
and  lectured  in  Rome,  and  afterwards  became  Bishop 
of  Lyons.  Thus  he  delivers  his  judgments,  knowing 
the  opinions  and  the  customs  of  different  churches ; 
and  his  views  on  such  a  matter  as  the  Books  of 
the  New  Testament  could  not  be  divergent  from 
those  generally  held.  His  judgment  is  not  the 
mere  judgment    of  an    individual  writer. 

(<:)  Irenaeus  was  the  pupil  of  Polycarp,  Bishop  of 
Smyrna,  who  in  155  a.d.  at  the  age  of  eighty- 
six  suffered  martyrdom  at  Smyrna.  Polycarp  was 
a  disciple  of  St.  John.  A  letter  is  preserved  by 
Eusebius  (H.E.  v.  20),  in  which  Irenaeus  reminds 
a  fellow-pupil  of  his  of  their  common  master, 
Polycarp,  "  how  he  would  describe  his  intercourse 
with  John  and  with  the  rest  who  had  seen  the 
Lord,  and  how  he  would  recount  their  words.  And 
whatsoever  things  he  had  heard  from  them  about  the 
Lord,  and  about  His  miracles,  and  about  His 
teaching,  Polycarp,  as  having  received  them  from 
eyewitnesses  of  the  life  of  the  Word,  would  relate 
altogether  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures."  You 
will  note  in  the  last  sentence  the  meeting  point  of 
the  two  streams,  oral  tradition  and  Scriptural  testi- 


112      HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

mony.  Thus  Irenaeus  is  a  link  with  those  Apostles 
who,  apparently  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
settled  in  Asia  Minor,  St.  John,  St.  Philip,  St. 
Andrew.  Through  Polycarp,  Irenaeus  is  the 
spiritual    grandson    of  St.    John. 

What  then  was  the  New  Testament  of  Irenaeus  ? 
I  answer  in  the  words  of  Bishop  Lightfoot  :  "  The 
authority  which  Irenaeus  attributes  to  the  four 
Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul,  several  of  the  Catholic  Epistles,  and  the 
Apocalypse,  falls  short  in  no  respect  of  the  estimate 
of  the  Church  Catholic  in  the  fourth  or  the  ninth  or 
the  nineteenth  century.  He  treats  them  as  on  a 
level  with  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  he  cites  them  as  Scripture  in  the  same  way  ; 
he  attributes  them  to  the  respective  authors  whose 
names  they  bear ;  he  regards  them  as  writings 
handed  down  in  the  several  Churches  from  the 
beginning  ;  he  fills  his  page  with  quotations  from 
them  ;  he  has  not  only  a  very  thorough  know- 
ledge of  their  contents  himself,  but  he  assumes 
an  acquaintance  with  and  a  recognition  of  them 
in  his  readers."^ 

We  turn  then  now  to  the  recognition  during 
this  period  of  the  Collection  of  the  Four  Gospels, 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  of  the  Collection 
of  the  Pauline  Epistles. 

'^Essays  on  the  work  entitled  Supernatural  Religion^  pp.  261  fF. 


THE    FOUR    GOSPELS  II3 

(i)  The  Four  Gospels. — We  start  with  a  well- 
known   passage  of  Irenaeus   (iii.    ii,  ed.   Massuet). 
Irenaeus    points    out    that    different    Gnostic    sects 
selected    different    Gospels    as    supplying    an    apos- 
tolic   confirmation    of   their    peculiar    tenets.     The 
Ebionites,   he    says,    used    only    St.    Matthew  ;    the 
Marcionites  only   St.   Luke  (in  a  mutilated  form)  ; 
another  sect   who    separated    Jesus    and    the    Christ 
— the    human,     that    is,    and     the    Divine    in    the 
Lord — only   St.    Mark  ;    the    Valentinians    only    St. 
John.      When,  then,   their   separate  testimonies   are 
combined,    the   sects    support    the    four    Gospels    of 
the    Catholic    Church.       But    indeed,   he    continues, 
the  Gospels  cannot  in  the  nature  of  things  be  either 
more  or  less  than   four  in   number.      The   number 
four   is    stamped    upon    creation.       There    are    four 
quarters    of  the    world  ;   four   great    winds.      It    is 
natural  and  reasonable,  therefore,  that,  as  the  Church 
is  spread  throughout  the   earth   and   the  Gospel  is 
the    support    of    the    Church,    the    Church    should 
have  four  pillars.     Moreover,  there  are  four  catholic 
covenants,  those  given  to  Noah,   Abraham,   Moses, 
and  that  given  to  man  through  Jesus  Christ.     And 
yet  again,  the  Word,  the  Creator  of  all   things,  is 
represented    in    the    Psalm    (Ixxx.    i)    as    seated   on 
the    Cherubim,    and    the    Cherubim    are    four-faced. 
When    the    Word    was    manifested    to    men.    He 
bestowed  on   us    "the   Gospel    in    a   fourfold   form. 

H 


I  14   HISTORY  OF  CANON  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

yet  bound  together  by  one  Spirit."  Irenaeus,  we 
may  note  in  passing,  presents  here  the  earliest  inter- 
pretation of  the  evangelical  symbols.  The  lion 
prefigures  St.  John's  Gospel,  the  calf  that  of  St. 
Luke,  the  man  that  of  St.  Matthew,  the  eagle 
that  of  St.   Mark. 

The  analogies  on  which  Irenaeus  relies  seem  to 
us  fanciful ;  the  argument  drawn  from  them  is 
altogether  insecure.  But  the  importance  of  the 
passage  does  not  lie  in  its  logical  cogency,  but  rather 
in  this — it  is  clear  evidence  that  Irenaeus  regarded 
the  four  Gospels  as  we  do  to-day,  as  holding  a 
unique  place.  He  cannot  imagine  the  Church 
without  the  four  Gospels,  or  with  Gospels  less 
or  more  than   four  in   number. 

But  this  parabolic  language  as  to  the  Four  Gospels 
was  probably  no  invention  of  Irenaeus.  It  was 
not,  it  seems,  original.  Origen,  writing  some  years 
later,  speaks  of  the  four  Gospels  as  the  elements 
of  the  Church's  faith,  "  of  which  elements  the  whole 
world  is  compacted"  {In  Joan.  i.  6).  The  passage 
in  Origen  is  very  similar,  yet  it  is  not  precisely 
parallel,  to  the  passage  in  Irenaeus ;  and  it  is  exceed- 
ingly probable,  though  it  perhaps  cannot  be  said 
to  be  certain,  that  both  these  writers  derived  their 
conception  of  the  fourfold  Gospel  from  a  yet 
earlier  writer,  Hernias.  In  one  of  the  visions  of 
the  Shepherd  of  Hermas    (iii.    13),  Hermas  sees  a 


HERMAS  115 

lady,  who  had  before  appeared  to  him  as  an  aged 
woman,  now  young  and  fair.  "  And  since  thou 
sawest  her  seated  on  a  couch,  her  position  is  firm  ; 
for  the  couch  hath  four  feet  and  standeth  firmly  ; 
for  the  world  too  is  upheld  by  means  of  four 
elements."  The  lady  in  the  vision  is  the  Church 
of  God  ;  the  four  feet  of  the  couch  are  almost 
certainly  the  four  Gospels.  This  interpretation 
of  the  imagery  is  strongly  confirmed  by  the  context, 
in  which  Hermas  speaks  of  good  tidings  (ayyeXla 
ayaOv,  rf?)  coming  to  one  in  sorrow,  so  that  his 
spirit  is  renewed  by  reason  of  his  joy  :  "  even  so," 
he  adds,  "  you  also  have  received  a  renewal  of 
your  spirits  by  seeing  these  good  things."  Now 
the  date  of  the  Shepherd  is  about  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  so  that,  if  this  interpretation 
of  its  imagery  is  correct,  the  evidence  for  the  collec- 
tion of  the  four  Gospels  is  carried  back  some  forty 
or  fifty  years  earlier  than  the  time  when  Irenaeus 
wrote. 

But  this  evidence  does  not  stand  alone.  About  the 
year  170  Heracleon,  a  leader  of  one  of  the  Gnostic 
sects,  wrote  a  commentary  on  St.  John's  Gospel 
and,  as  it  appears,  on  that  of  St.  Luke  also.  Even 
in  the  fragments  of  his  work  which  still  survive 
we  discover  several  references  to  St.  Matthew.  The 
consideration  that  Heracleon  deals  with  the  words 
rather    than  with    the   life    of  Christ,   and   that    St. 


Il6       HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Mark  records  little  of  Christ's  teaching  which  is 
not  found  in  the  other  Synoptists,  sufficiently 
accounts  for  the  fact  that  these  fragments  contain 
no  allusion  to  any  words  characteristic  of  the  second 
Gospel.  We  must  not  fail  to  remark  that  a  com- 
mentary, and  the  use  in  that  commentary  of  allegor- 
ical methods  of  interpretation,  imply  the  attribution 
to  the  Books  expounded  of  an  authority  long 
recognized. 

About  the  same  time  Tatian,  a  writer  who  be- 
longed to  another  Gnostic  sect,  drew  up  a  harmony 
of  the  four  Gospels  called  the  Diatessaron,  i.e.  the 
History  of  the  Lord  told  by  four  writers.  Evidence 
which  has  come  to  light  during  the  last  twenty-five 
years  leaves  us  in  no  doubt  as  to  the  character  of 
Tatian's  work.^  He  used  our  four  Gospels  just  as  a 
harmonist  of  to-day  might  use  them.  The  fact  of 
the  compilation  of  such  a  Harmony  in  itself  speaks 
volumes.  But  Tatian's  Harmony  was  not  in  Greek, 
the  original  language  of  the  four  Gospels,  but  in 
Syriac.  This  implies  that  the  four  Gospels  had  been 
already  translated  into  Syriac ;  and  translation  is  a 
tribute  to  the  recognized  authority  of  the  work 
translated,  and  moreover  implies  that  it  is  no  literary 
upstart.  Thus  the  Harmony  of  Tatian  is  a  testi- 
mony  to    the    supreme   position  which  the  Gospels 

1  See  e.g.  Hamlyn  Hill's  The  Earliest  Life  of  Christy  being  the 
Diatessaron  of  Tatian. 


JUSTIN    MARTYR  II7 

must  long  have  held  as  the  authoritative  records  of 
the  Life  of  Christ. 

But  we  can  go  a  step  further  back.  Probably  a 
few  years  before  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
Justin  Martyr  at  Rome  addressed  to  the  Emperor 
Antoninus  Pius  his  defence  of  Christianity,  and  about 
the  same  time  wrote  his  Dialogue  with  the  Jew 
Trypho,  a  controversial  treatise  against  the  Jews. 
In  these  apologetic  works,  addressed  to  those 
without,  Justin  avoids  the  use  of  terms  which  were 
characteristic  of  the  Christian  Church.  Referring  to 
the  records  of  the  Lord's  Life,  he  employs  a  word 
which,  as  the  title  of  Xenophon's  account  of  Socrates, 
was  familiar  to  educated  men — '  the  Memoirs,' 
'  the  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles.'  But  in  one  passage 
{^Ap.  i.  G())  he  is  more  explicit  and  speaks  of  '  the 
Memoirs '  written  by  the  Apostles  "  which  are 
called  Gospels."  These  '  Memoirs,'  he  tells  us,  no 
doubt  with  special  reference  to  the  custom  of  the 
Roman  Church,  were  publicly  read.  "  On  the 
so-called  day  of  the  Sun  there  is  a  meeting  of  all  of 
us  who  live  in  cities  or  in  the  country,  and  the 
Memoirs  of  the  Apostles  or  the  writings  of  the 
Prophets  are  read,  so  long  as  time  allows " 
i^Ap.  i.  67).  The  works  of  Justin  contain  allusions 
to  the  Lord's  words  and  works  of  such  a  kind  as  to 
imply  the  use  of  each  one  of  the  four  Gospels. 
Moreover,  in  one  passage  {Dial.   103),  speaking  of 


Il8       HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

'the  Memoirs,'  Justin  adds  "which  I  assert  to 
have  been  drawn  up  by  His  Apostles  and  by  those 
who  followed  them."  In  both  cases  you  will  observe 
that  the  plural  is  used.  This  statement  as  to  the 
authorship  of  '  the  Memoirs  '  precisely  agrees  with 
the  case  of  our  four  Gospels — two  bearing  the 
name  of  Apostles  (St.  Matthew,  St.  John),  two  the 
names  of  followers  of  the  Apostles  (St.  Mark,  St. 
Luke).  If  we  still  hesitate  as  to  the  identification  of 
Justin's  '  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles '  with  our  four 
Gospels,  we  recall  the  fact  that  Tatian,  who  drew  up 
a  Harmony  of  the  four  Gospels,  was  the  pupil  of 
Justin. 

The  last  witness  to  whom  we  appeal  speaks  with  a 
less  decisive  voice.  Papias  of  Hierapolis,  whose  life 
(to  give  the  probable  limits  of  date)  extended  from 
65  to  135  A. D.,  is  a  Subapostolic  Father  of  extreme 
importance.  He  had  seen  and  known  some  of  those 
who  had  seen  and  known  the  Lord.  He  was  the 
author  of  a  treatise  of  five  books  on  '  the  Oracles  of 
the  Lord,'  of  which  Eusebius  {H.E.  iii.  39)  quotes 
fragments  of  great  interest,  which  however  are  sadly 
scanty.  Papias,  then,  in  the  fragments  preserved  by 
Eusebius,  explicitly  refers  to  the  Gospels  according  to 
St.  Matthew^  and  St.  Mark,  giving  important  details 


^  It  is  right  to  quote  the  actual  words  of  Papias  as  preserved 
by  Eusebius — "So  then  Matthew  composed  the  Oracles  in  the 
Hebrew  language,  and  each  one  translated   them  as  he  was  able." 


PAPIAS  119 

as  to  their  composition.  But  what  of  St.  John  and 
St.  Luke  ^  Eusebius  informs  us  that  Papias  used 
(^i.e.  in  a  portion  of  his  work  which  has  not  come 
down  to  us)  testimonies  from  the  First  Epistle  of  St. 
John.  The  Epistle  and  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  are 
so  closely  related  that  knowledge  and  acceptance  of 
the  one  implies  knowledge  and  acceptance  of  the 
other.  Moreover,  there  are,  as  Bishop  Lightfoot 
has  shewn,^  independent  reasons  for  holding  that 
Papias  knew  and  used  the  fourth  Gospel.      The  case 


On  this  Mr.  W.  C.  Allen  [Contentio  Veritath^  p.  210)  writes  thus: 
"  It  is  clear  that  this  statement  cannot  apply  to  our  Gospel  as  it 
now  exists.  It  is  not  written  in  Hebrew,  nor  is  it  a  translation 
of  a  Hebrew  work.  And  the  term  Login.,  i.e.  Oracles,  or  Sayings, 
would  be  a  very  unsuitable  word  to  describe  so  carefully 
articulated  a  theological  treatise  in  narrative  form  as  our  Gospel." 
But  it  must  be  observed  that  it  may  well  be  that  Eusebius  does 
not  give  the  whole  of  what  Papias  said  about  St.  Matthew,  just 
as  it  is  certain  from  the  words  which  he  quotes  that  he  does 
not  give  the  whole  of  what  Papias  said  about  St.  Mark.  In  the 
words  "each  one  translated  them  "  (notice  the  past  tense)  Papias 
clearly  refers  to  a  state  of  things  which  had  passed  away  when  he 
wrote.  It  would  be  natural  and  almost  inevitable  that  he  should 
continue  the  history  and  explain  how  it  was  that  the  need  for  in- 
dividual translation  had,  when  he  wrote,  ceased  to  exist.  Further, 
Bishop  Lightfoot  [Essays  on  Supernatural  Religion,  pp.  172  ff.;  comp. 
Bishop  Westcott,  Canon,  p.  73  n.)  shews  that  the  term  Oracles 
was,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  used  to  include  narratives  as  well  as  dis- 
courses. It  is  remarkable,  and  not  without  significance,  that  Mr. 
Allen  passes  over  the  work  of  Bishop  Westcott  and  Bishop 
Lightfoot  [e.g.  on  the  Fourth  Gospel)  as  though  it  did  not  exist. 
^Essays  on  the  work  entitled  Supernatural  Religion,  pp.  192  ff. 


I20       HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  St.  Luke  is  different.  There  is  some  evidence 
which  makes  it  probable  that  Papias  was  acquainted 
with  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke,  but  it  is  slight  and 
inconclusive.  Proof,  therefore,  just  stops  short  of 
allowing  us  to  assert  that  Papias  acknowledged  the 
fourfold  Gospel.  If  we  could  with  confidence  have 
appealed  to  Papias,  we  should  have  traced  the 
evidence  for  the  collection  of  the  four  Gospels  to 
the  first  quarter  of  the  first  century.  As  the  case 
stands,  we  must  stop  short  at  the  name  of  Justin 
Martyr;  and  his  testimony  warrants  us  in  saying 
that  in  the  second  quarter  of  the  first  century  the 
four  Gospels  as  a  collection  of  Books  had  already 
secured  a  unique  position  of  authority  in  the  Church. 
(2)  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles. — Of  the  Acts 
it  must  sufHce  to  say  that  at  the  end  of  the  period 
the  Book  is  referred  to  by  the  title  familiar  to  our- 
selves— The  Acts  of  the  Apostles — and  as  the  work  of 
St.  Luke.  This  is  the  case  with  Irenaeus,  Bishop  of 
Lyons  (iii.  13.  3),  with  the  author  of  the  Muratorian 
Canon,  speaking  from  Rome  ;  with  Clement  of 
Alexandria  {Strom,  v.  12,  p.  696  ed.  Potter)  ;  with 
Tertullian  of  Carthage  [adv.  Marc.  v.  i,  de  Jejun. 
10).  Two  further  observations  must  be  added. 
Earlier  writers  incorporate  language  drawn  from  the 
Book.  Again,  since  the  Acts  and  the  Gospel  of 
St.  Luke  are  clearly  the  work  of  the  same  author, 
and  the  two  Books  form  a  single  whole,  the  evidence 


THE    PAULINE    EPISTLES  121 

which  we  have  adduced  of  the  acceptance  of  the 
Gospel  in  the  second  quarter  of  the  second  century 
implies  the  acceptance  of  the  Acts. 

(3)  The  Pauline  Epistles. — We  have  seen  how 
towards  the  end  of  the  century  Irenaeus  quotes  all 
the  thirteen  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  with  the  one 
exception  of  the  brief  private  letter  to  Philemon.  Some 
ten  years  earlier  Theophilus  of  Antioch  wrote  three 
books  of  '  Elementary  Instruction,'  in  which  he  en- 
deavoured to  win  over  to  the  faith  a  learned  heathen 
friend,  Autolycus.  In  this  treatise  he  quotes  eight  of 
St.  Paul's  Epistles,  adducing  a  text  from  i  Tim. 
as  'the  divine  word'  (^Ad  Autol.  iii.  14).  A  more 
important  witness  is  Marcion,  the  Gnostic.  Marcion, 
as  a  younger  contemporary  of  Justin  Martyr,  takes 
us  back  well  within  the  second  quarter  of  the 
second  century.  He  held  St.  Paul  to  be  the 
only  true  Apostle,  and,  as  we  know  from  Ter- 
tullian  and  Epiphanius,  accepted  as  authoritative  ten 
Epistles  of  that  Apostle.  We  can  hardly  doubt  that 
he  was  influenced  in  his  rejection  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  by  controversial  reasons.  Those  Epistles 
contain  much  which  was  clean  opposed  to  Marcion's 
characteristic  tenets,  e.g.  his  views  on  marriage. 
From  Clement  of  Alexandria  {Strom,  ii.  11,  ed.  Potter 
p.  457)  we  learn  that  certain  heretics — not  improb- 
ably he  means  the  followers  of  Marcion — finding 
themselves  convicted  by  the  words,   '  the  objections 


122       HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  knowledge  falsely  so-called/  rejected  the  Epistles 
to  Timothy.  Thus,  in  regard  to  the  three  Pastoral 
Epistles,  Marcion's  position  is  probably  the  exception 
which  proves  the  rule  of  their  acceptance.  But  how- 
ever that  may  be,  it  remains  true  that  Marcion 
supplies  us  with  a  very  early  instance  of  a  Canon  of 
Christian  Scriptures,  and  that,  though  he  freely 
handled  the  knife,  he  yet  accepted  as  a  collection  ten 
of  St.  Paul's  Epistles. 

But  we  can  trace  the  collection  of  St.  Paul's 
Epistles  to  an  earlier  date.  Polycarp  of  Smyrna  in 
his  letter  to  the  Philippians,  and  Ignatius  of  Antioch 
in  his  seven  letters  to  the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor 
and  of  Rome,  incorporate  the  language  of  so  many  of 
St.  Paul's  Epistles,  including  the  Pastoral  Epistles, 
that  it  appears  to  be  a  legitimate  inference  that  the 
complete  collection  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  was  in  their 
hands.  The  witness  of  Polycarp  and  Ignatius  brings 
us  back  to  the  year  115  a.d.^  When  they  wrote  the 
Pauline  collection  was  already  recognized  in  the 
Church. 

II.  We  now  turn  to  the  second  great  period  with 
which  we  have  to  deal,  the  third  and  fourth  centuries. 
Our  task  is  to  trace  the  history  of  the  acceptance  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  of  the  Apocalypse,  and 
of  the  collection  of  Epistles  known  as  the  Catholic 
1  These  passages  are  collected  on  p.  183. 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS  1 23 

Epistles  ;  and  finally,  to  shew  under  what  influences 
the  complete  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  was 
accepted  in  the  East  and  in  the  West. 

(i)  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  —  There 
was  in  the  early  centuries  a  division  of  opinion  as  to 
the  authorship,  and  consequently  as  to  the  authority, 
of  this  Epistle.  The  line  of  cleavage  coincided  with 
the  natural  boundary  which  separated  Eastern  from 
Western  Christendom. 

We  turn  then  to  the  East,  and  in  the  East  first  to 
the  Church  of  Alexandria.  We  have  the  witness  of 
three  generations  of  great  Alexandrian  teachers. 
Clement,  as  his  words  are  preserved  by  Eusebius 
{H.E.  vi.  14.  4),  records  how  'the  blessed  Elder' — 
doubtless  his  own  master  Pantaenus — '  used  to  say ' 
that  St.  Paul  abstained  from  calling  himself  the 
'  Apostle  of  the  Hebrews,'  partly  out  of  reverence 
for  the  Lord — for  "  He  was  the  Apostle  of  the 
Almighty,  and  was  sent  to  the  Hebrews " — and 
partly  because  his  writing  to  the  Hebrews  was 
outside  his  own  proper  work,  "  inasmuch  as  he 
was  the  herald  and  Apostle  of  the  nations."  The 
master  then  held  that  the  Epistle  was  properly  the 
work  of  St.  Paul.  The  position  of  the  pupil  was 
somewhat  different.  Clement  {ap.  Eus.  H.E.  vi. 
14.  2)  maintained  that  St.  Paul  wrote  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  in  Hebrew,  and  refrained  from  adding 
his   name  because   his   countrymen   were   prejudiced 


124      HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

against  him,  and  that  St.  Luke  translated  the  Hebrew 
original  for  the  sake  of  Greek  readers  ;  hence  the 
similarity  in  style  between  the  Hebrews  and  the 
Acts.  Origen,  to  pass  to  the  next  generation,  notices 
the  difference  in  style  between  this  Epistle  and  those 
of  St.  Paul,  though  the  thoughts  are  the  thoughts  of 
the  Apostle.  The  conclusion  to  which  he  was  led 
was  that  the  Epistle  was  the  composition  of  some  one 
who  recalled  from  memory  St.  Paul's  teaching.  "  If 
any  church,  therefore,  receive  this  Epistle  as  the 
Epistle  of  St.  Paul,  let  it  be  applauded  for  this.  For 
not  without  reason  have  those  of  old  time  handed 
the  Epistle  down  as  that  of  Paul.  Howbeit  who 
wrote  the  Epistle,  God  only  knows  the  truth  ;  but 
the  account  which  has  reached  us  is  that  Clement,  as 
some  say,  or  Luke,  as  others  say,  wrote  it."^  Thus 
Clement  and  Origen  uphold  the  Pauline  character 
rather  than  the  Pauline  authorship.  Eusebius  is  not 
altogether  consistent  in  his  treatment  of  the  question. 
In  one  place  (H.E.  vi.  13)  he  reckons  this  Epistle  as 
one  of  the  *  disputed  Books '  ;  in  another  passage 
(H.E.  iii.  25)  among  the  'acknowledged  Books'; 
elsewhere  again  (H.E.  iii.  3)  he  mentions  that  some 
rejected  it  on  the  ground  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
questioned  it  as  not  being  the  work  of  St.  Paul.  In 
a  fourth  passage  {H.E.  iii.  38)  he  records  the  opinion 
that  St.  Paul  wrote  to  his  own  countrymen  in  their 
^Ap.  Eus.  H.E.  vi.  25.  11-14. 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS  I25 

own  language,  adding  that  some  who  held  this  view 
taught  that  St.  Luke,  others  that  Clement  of  Rome, 
translated  the  Epistle  into  Greek,  he  himself  inclining 
to  the  name  of  Clement.  The  Syriac  Vulgate,  the 
Peshitta,  may  be  taken  as  not  unfairly  representing 
the  general  conclusion  of  earlier  times.  In  that 
version  the  Epistle  is  simply  called  '  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,'  and  it  has  a  place  immediately  after 
St.  Paul's  Epistles  ;  thus  it  is  a  kind  of  appendix  to 
the  Pauline  group.  Of  the  fourth  century  little 
need  be  said.  In  the  lists  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  and 
of  Athanasius  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  regarded  as 
fourteen  in  number,  and  therefore  as  including  that 
to  the  Hebrews.  The  great  exegetes  of  the  Antio- 
chene  School  —  Chrysostom  and  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia — commented  on  it  as  undoubtedly  the 
work  of  St.  Paul.  Amphilochius  of  Iconium,  in 
his  list  of  New  Testament  Books,  records  and 
condemns  the  scepticism  of  some  —  "some  say 
that  that  to  the  Hebrews  is  spurious,  wrongly  ; 
for  genuine  is  its  grace."  Thus  in  the  East  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  accounted  Pauline, 
but  commonly,  at  least  in  earlier  days,  in  a 
secondary    sense. 

In  the  West,  Clement,  writing  at  Rome  in  the 
year  95  a.d.,  shews  his  acquaintance  with  the  Epistle; 
his  mind,  it  is  clear,  was  saturated  with  its  ideas  and 
words.      A    century    later    the  case    had    altogether 


126      HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

changed.  Hippolytus,  we  are  told  (Photius  Cod. 
232),  asserted  that  tlie  Epistle  was  not  St.  Paul's,  nor 
does  he  quote  it  in  his  extant  works.  It  is  omitted 
in  the  Muratorian  Fragment.  In  a  disputation  held 
with  Proclus,  a  Montanist  leader,  Caius,  a  Roman 
presbyter,  appealed  to  thirteen  Epistles  of  St.  Paul, 
"  not  reckoning  that  to  the  Hebrews  with  the  rest " 
(Eus.  H.E.  vi.  20).  The  contrast  between  the 
position  of  Clement  and  that  of  the  Church  at  Rome 
a  century  later  may  in  part  be  due  to  the  fact  that, 
after  the  Church  had  outgrown  the  traditions  of  the 
early  period  when  its  relations  with  the  synagogue 
were  more  or  less  close,  any  relic  of  Jewish 
Christianity  became  distasteful  to  its  members.  But 
Rome  in  this  matter  was  not  isolated  from  other 
Western  Churches.  Only  two  MSS.  remain,  and 
those  closely  related  to  each  other,  which  give  an  old 
Latin  text  of  this  Epistle.  As  to  Irenaeus  in  South 
Gaul,  though,  according  to  Eusebius  {H,E.  v.  26), 
in  a  volume  of  '  divers  discourses '  he  adduced 
passages  from  this  Epistle,  yet  in  his  extant  works, 
though  it  would  have  served  his  controversial  pur- 
poses, he  appears  never  to  quote  it.  At  Carthage 
Tertullian  quotes  its  words  as  those  of  a  companion 
of  the  Apostles — Barnabas  in  his  view — '  ex  redun- 
dantia,'  as  a  work  of  supererogation  ;  and  alleges 
that  it  was  more  widely  accepted  in  the  Churches  than 
the  Shepherd  of  Hermas — a  form  of  praise  which, 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE     HEBREWS  I27 

with  Tertullian,  is  not  far  removed  from  censure.^ 
Further,  though  Marcion  rejected  this  Epistle, 
Tertullian  does  not  count  this  among  his  many 
offences.  In  the  next  generation  Cyprian  does  not 
quote  the  Hebrews,  and,  as  he  lays  stress  on  St. 
Paul's  having  written  to  seven  churches,  he  by  impli- 
cation rejects  it.  A  century  later  the  Epistle  is 
omitted  in  the  African  list  of  Books  preserved  in  the 
Cheltenhem  MS.^  Lastly,  towards  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century  Jerome  {Ep.  cxxix.  3)  and  Augustine 
{^De  Peccatorum  Mer.  i.  27)  both  accepted  the  Epistle 
as  Canonical  in  reliance  on  the  authority  of  the 
Eastern  Churches,  the  former  expressly  noting  that 
"  the  custom  of  the  Latins  does  not  receive  it  among 
the  Canonical  Scriptures,"  and  balancing  this  rejection 
of  the  Hebrews  by  Western  Churches  against  the 
rejection  of  the  Apocalypse  by  '  the  Churches  of  the 
Greeks.' 

To  sum  up,  the  West,  making  apostolic  author- 
ship the  criterion  of  canonicity,  refused  to  accept  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  East  recognized  the 
apostolic  character  of  the  Epistle  and  accounted  it  as 

^  Tert.  de  Pudicitia  20,  Possibly  the  phrase  *  receptior  apud 
ecclesias '  means  '  more  worthy  to  be  accepted  in  the  Churches  ' 
rather  than  '  more  widely  in  the  Churches.' 

2  The  MS,  containing  this  list  was  discovered  in  1885  by  Professor 
Mommsen  in  the  Phillipps  Collection  at  Cheltenham  ;  hence  it  is 
commonly  called  the  Cheltenham  List.  The  time  when  the  list 
was  made  was  shortly  after  350  a.d. 


128       HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

Scripture,  in  earlier  days  maintaining  that  in  some 
secondary  sense  it  was  the  work  of  St.  Paul,  and  in 
later  times  asserting  without  qualification  the  Pauline 
authorship.  The  Eastern  view  was  accepted  by  Jerome 
and  Augustine,  and  the  inclusion  of  the  Epistle  in 
the  Latin  Vulgate  closed  the  question  in  the  West. 

(2)  The  Apocalypse. — At  the  end  of  the  second 
century  the  Apocalypse  was  widely  accepted — by 
Hippolytus  at  Rome  (with  whom  we  may  connect 
the  Muratorian  Canon),  by  Tertullian .  at  Carthage, 
by  Clement  at  Alexandria,  by  Irenaeus  in  South  Gaul. 
The  evidence  of  Irenaeus  is  of  special  importance. 
The  passage  (v.  30)  in  which  Irenaeus  deals  with  the 
Apocalypse  presents  perhaps  the  earliest  discussion 
of  a  variation  of  reading  in  the  New  Testament. 
In  place  of  666,  the  number  of  the  Beast  (Apoc. 
xiii.  t8),  some  in  the  time  of  Irenaeus  read  616. 
Irenaeus  maintains  the  reading  666  on  three  grounds, 
(a)  He  appeals,  as  we  should  say,  to  'documentary 
evidence.'  "  That  number,"  he  says,  "  is  found  in 
all  the  good  and  ancient  copies."  (/3)  He  appeals  to 
oral  tradition.  "  Those  who  had  seen  John  face  to 
face  used  to  give  their  testimony  to  it."  (7)  He 
appeals,  to  use  our  modern  phrase,  to  '  intrinsic  proba- 
bility.' "  Reason  teaches  us  "  that  it  is  appropriate 
that  the  same  number  should  repeat  itself  in  the 
hundreds,  the  tens,  and  as  the  unit.  You  will 
observe  that  the  mention  of  "  the  good  and  ancient 


THE    APOCALYPSE  1 29 

copies "  implies  both  wide  circulation  and  antiquity. 
The  occurrence  also  of  variations  of  reading  in 
different  copies  of  a  Book  is  an  evidence  of  age. 
Some  ten  years  earlier  than  Irenaeus  we  know 
that  the  Apocalypse  was  used  by  Theophilus  at 
Antioch  (Eus.  H.E.  iv.  24),  and  by  Melito  at 
Sardis  ;  the  latter  indeed  made  it  the  subject  of  a 
treatise  (Eus.  H.E.  iv.  26).  Even  more  important 
is  the  evidence  of  Justin  Martyr  about  the  middle  of 
the  century.  The  Apocalypse  is  the  only  Book  of 
the  New  Testament  whose  author  Justin  mentions  by 
name.  "Among  us,"  he  says  {Dial.  81  ;  comp. 
Eus.  H.E.  iv.  18.  8),  "a  certain  man  whose  name 
was  John,  one  of  the  Apostles  of  the  Christ,  in  an 
apocalypse  vouchsafed  to  him,  prophesied  that 
those  who  believe  our  Christ  will  pass  a  thousand 
years  in  Jerusalem,  and  that  after  this  there  will  be 
the  general  and  (in  a  word)  the  eternal  resurrection 
of  all  men,  and  the  judgment."  Thus  in  the  second 
century  the  evidence  for  the  acceptance  of  the 
Apocalypse  as  an  Apostolic  writing,  the  work  of  St. 
John,  is  remarkably  varied,  strong,  and  early.  But 
when  from  the  second  we  turn  to  the  third  century 
we  become  aware  of  discordant  notes. 

A  certain  sect,  called  from  its  founder  the 
Montanists,  though  they  were  guilty  of  no  formal 
heresy,  broke  away  from  the  Catholic  Church  mainly 
on  certain   questions   of  discipline.     They  were  the 


130      HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF     NEW    TESTAMENT 

Puritans  of  the  early  Church.  They  were 
characterized  by  two  opinions.  On  the  one  hand 
they  exaggerated  and  distorted  the  doctrine  of  the 
Paraclete  (the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Comforter),  in  that 
they  insisted  that  the  Spirit  made  revelations  to 
members  of  their  body,  and  that  these  revelations 
were  binding  on  the  whole  number  of  the  Faithful. 
On  the  other  hand,  they  dwelt  with  unusual  vigour 
on  the  conception  of  the  millennium  kingdom — 
Christ's  reign  on  earth  for  a  thousand  years.  The 
former  of  these  views  was  based  on  the  teaching  of 
St.  John's  Gospel,  the  latter  on  the  symbolism  of  the 
Apocalypse.  Hence  some  who  opposed  their 
characteristic  doctrines,  strove  to  cut  at  the  root  of 
the  mischief  by  calling  in  question  the  Gospel 
and  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John.  Caius,  a  pres- 
byter, early  in  the  third  century,  in  a  disputation 
which  he  held  at  Rome  with  Proclus,  a  Montanist 
leader,  appears  absurdly  enough  to  have  ascribed  the 
Apocalypse  to  Cerinthus,  a  contemporary  of  St. 
John,  who  denied  the  true  humanity  of  Christ  (Eus. 
H.E.  iii.  28).  Again,  a  certain  nebulous  sect,  whom 
Epiphanius  {Haer.  li.)  nicknamed  the  Alogi  (the 
irrational  ones^),  went   a  step  further    and  rejected 

1  The  name  Alogi  refers  both  to  their  supposed  character — 
those  who  were  without  reason  {logos)  ;  and  to  the  fact  that  in 
rejecting  St.  John's  Gospel  they  rejected  the  doctrine  of  the 
Word  {Logos).  They  are  also  probably  alluded  to  in  Irenaeus 
iii.  11.9. 


THE    AUTHOR    OF    THE    APOCALYPSE  I3I 

both  the  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse,  affirming  that 
they  were  the  work  not  of  the  Apostle  but  of  the 
heresiarch,  Cerinthus.  Thus,  though  no  historical 
evidence  was  alleged  against  the  Apocalypse,  yet 
because  of  the  extravagances  of  those  who  misused  its 
imagery  it  fell  into  discredit.  A  more  cautious 
and  reverent  criticism  meets  us  in  some  fragments, 
preserved  by  Eusebius  (H.E.  vii.  25),  of  a  letter  of 
Dionysius,  a  great  bishop  of  Alexandria  about  the  year 
260.  Dionysius,  with  the  precision  of  a  scholar, 
notes  the  differences  in  general  character,  in  literary 
style,  and  in  vocabulary  which  separate  the  Fourth 
Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse.  The  two  books  cannot, 
he  argues,  be  the  work  of  the  same  writer. 
John  the  Apostle  was  the  author  of  the  Gospel. 
That  the  writer  of  the  Apocalypse  was  '  a  holy  and 
inspired  man '  Dionysius  admits,  and  that  his  name 
was  John  ;  but  he  cannot  have  been  the  same  John 
who  wrote  the  Gospel.  The  fragment  illustrates  in 
a  remarkable  degree  the  reverent  freedom  with  which 
the  question  of  the  authorship  of  a  Scriptural  Book 
was  discussed  in  the  third  century,  and  the  critical 
and  literary  insight  which  was  brought  to  bear  on 
such  problems.  In  the  fourth  century  we  find  a 
remarkable  division  of  opinion  and  practice.  Turn- 
ing to  the  Eastern  (Greek)  Church,  we  note  that  the 
Apocalypse  was  included  in  some  lists  of  Books  (e.^. 
that  of  Athanasius),   that    it  was  omitted  in  others 


132   HISTORY  OF  CANON  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

(^e.g.  that  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem),  that  it  was  included 
in  others  with  an  expression  of  doubt  {e.g.  that  of 
Eusebius  and  that  of  Amphilochius,  Bishop  of 
Iconium).  It  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  Chrysostom, 
presbyter  of  Antioch  and  afterwards  Archbishop 
of  Constantinople,  though  it  is  clear  that  he  was 
acquainted  with  it,  yet,  in  all  his  voluminous  works, 
abstains  from  any  appeal  to  the  Apocalypse  as  a 
doctrinal  authority.  "  Sometimes,"  in  writers  of  this 
century,  to  quote  some  unpublished  words  of  Dr. 
Hort,  "  but  rarely,  one  comes  across  a  shy  quotation. 
It  was  probably  accepted  as  a  matter  of  form,  but 
passed  over  as  a  matter  of  practice." 

In  the  West,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Apocalypse  was 
generally  accepted.  "  We  receive  them  both,"  wrote 
Jerome  {Ep.  cxxix.  3,  referring  to  the  Apocalypse 
and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews),  "  not  following 
the  custom  of  our  own  time,  but  the  authority  of 
ancient  writers,  who  often  adduce  quotations  from 
them,  as  from  Canonical  and  Ecclesiastical  Books." 

How  then  are  we  to  account  for  this  remark- 
able divergence  between  the  earliest  and  later 
times,  between  the  estimate  of  the  Book  in  the 
second  century  and  that  of  the  fourth  }  It  was 
probably  due  partly  to  the  cause  to  which  I  have 
already  alluded — the  condemnation  of  millenarian 
views,  which  were  based,  or  were  supposed  to  be 
based,  on  the  teaching  of  the  Book  ;  partly  to  the 


THE    CATHOLIC    EPISTLES  I33 

suspicion  under  which  the  Apocalyptic  literature,  of 
which  the  so-called  Apocalypse  of  Peter  is  a  con- 
spicuous example,  fell  in  the  fourth  century.  But 
whatever  doubts  were  current  in  later  times  as  to  its 
fitness  for  popular  use  or  as  to  its  Apostolic  authority 
it  is  important  to  remember  that  in  the  second  century, 
when  the  traditions  of  the  Apostolic  age  were  still 
living,  it  was  held  in  high  estimation.  It  was 
accepted  by  Melito  and  Irenaeus,  the  pupils  of  those 
teachers  in  Asia  Minor  who  had  themselves  been  the 
pupils  of  St.  John. 

(3)  The  Catholic  Epistles. — The  collection  ot 
Catholic  Epistles  may  be  compared  with  that  in 
the  Hebrew  Bible  called  the  D"^ain5  (the  Writings). ^ 
Both  collections  were  formed  latest  in  their  respective 
Canons.  Both  included  Books  about  which  there 
had  been  doubt.  Both  were  to  some  extent  mis- 
cellaneous ;  for  in  the  New  Testament  Canon  the 
two  shorter  Epistles  of  St.  John  were  not,  properly 
speaking,  Catholic  (General)  Epistles. 

In  the  early  Syriac  Church  it  appears  that  no 
Catholic  Epistle  was  accepted.  "  The  Law  and  the 
Prophets   and   the  Gospel,"   to   quote  an   important 


^  The  Hebrew  Bible  is  arranged  as  follows:  (i)  The  Law; 
(2)  The  Former  Prophets  (Joshua,  Judges,  i,  2  Samuel, 
I,  2  Kings);  (3)  The  Later  Prophets;  (4)  The  Writings 
(Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job,  Song  of  Solomon,  Ruth,  Lamentations, 
Ecclesiastes,  Esther,  Daniel,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  i,  2  Chronicles). 


134      HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

passage  from  an  ancient  Syriac  work  called  The 
Doctrine  of  Addai  (p.  44,  ed.  Phillips),  "  which  ye 
read  every  day  before  the  people,  and  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul,  which  Simon  Peter  sent  us  from  the  city  of 
Rome,  and  the  Acts  of  the  twelve  Apostles,  which 
John,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  sent  us  from  Ephesus, 
these  Books  read  ye  in  the  Churches  of  Christ, 
and  with  these  read  not  any  others,  as  there  is  not 
any  other  in  which  the  truth  which  ye  hold  is 
written,  except  these  Books." 

In  the  growth  of  the  collection  of  the  Catholic 
Epistles  we  may  trace  three  stages. 

{a)  The  nucleus  of  the  collection  consisted  of  the 
First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  and  the  First  Epistle  of  St. 
John.  Of  the  "  authority  "  of  these  two  Epistles,  to 
use  the  words  of  the  sixth  article,  "  was  never  any 
doubt  in  the  Church." 

[J?)  The  Collection  of  Three  Epistles. — To 
these  two  Epistles  (i  Peter,  i  John)  that  of  St. 
James  was  added.  This  collection  represented  the 
teaching  of  the  three  Apostles  of  the  Circumcision, 
and  it  was  obviously  complementary  to  the  collection 
of  Pauline  Epistles.  The  fact  that  the  Epistle  of 
St.  James  commonly  held  the  first  place  among  the 
Catholic  Epistles  (cf.  Eus.  H.E.  ii.  23.  25)  points 
to  the  conclusion  that  this  collection  of  three 
Epistles  had  its  origin  in  Syria,  perhaps  in  Jerusalem. 
These    three    Epistles    formed    the    Canon    of  the 


THE    EPISTLE    OF    ST.    JAMES  1 35 

Catholic  Epistles  in  the  great  Syriac  version  of  the 
New  Testament.  They  alone  were  accepted  in  the 
neighbouring  Church  of  Antioch — that  Church  of 
which  John  Chrysostom  is  the  most  famous  repre- 
sentative. Amphilochius,  Bishop  of  Iconium  about 
380  A.D.,  in  his  list  of  Books,  speaks  of  some  persons 
who  say  that  "  three  only  [of  the  Catholic  Epistles] 
ought  to  be  received — one  of  James,  one  of  Peter, 
and  one  of  John." 

Of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  it  may  be  briefly  said 
that  in  the  East,  if  it  was  not  very  extensively  used, 
no  doubts  were  expressed  as  to  its  authority.  It 
was  in  the  West  that  its  position  was  questioned. 
At  Carthage  Tertullian's  supposed  allusions  to  its 
language  are  very  doubtful ;  Cyprian,  from  whose 
quotations  a  large  part  of  the  New  Testament  could 
be  re-written,  never  uses  it ;  a  century  later  it  is 
omitted  in  the  '  Cheltenham  '  list  of  New  Testament 
Books.  At  Rome,  as  the  silence  of  the  Muratorian 
Fragment  shews,  it  was  ignored.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  Irenaeus  in  South  Gaul  was  acquainted 
with  it.  On  the  other  hand,  traces  of  its  language 
are  found  in  Clement  of  Rome,  in  the  Teaching  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles,  and  in  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas. 
The  last-named  writer  indeed  had  clearly  a  special 
reverence  for  it,  and  knew  it  by  heart.  It  is  probable 
that,  owing  to  the  original  circumstances  of  its 
destination  (it  is  addressed  to  the  Jewish  Dispersion), 


136       HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

and  to  its  peculiar  character  (though  it  is  full  ot 
echoes  of  Christ's  teaching,  it  hardly  mentions  His 
name,  and  never  alludes  to  His  death  or  resurrection), 
it  had  a  limited  circulation,  epecially  in  the  West ; 
and,  as  it  touched  Christian  doctrine  at  but  few  points 
and  had  no  bearing  on  the  theological  controversies 
of  the  early  centuries,  it  attracted  little  attention.  It 
was  probably  the  influence  of  the  Churches  of  Syria 
and  of  the  further  East  which  gained  for  it  a  place  in 
the  Canon. 

(c)  The  Collection  of  Seven  Epistles. — The  first 
mention  of  seven  Catholic  Epistles  is  found  in  a 
passage  of  Eusebius  {H.E.  ii.  23.  25).  There  were 
obvious  reasons  why,  as  there  were  four  Epistles 
bearing  Apostolic  names  and  therefore  challenging 
a  place  in  the  Canon,  the  collection  of  Catholic 
Epistles  should  be  extended  from  three  to  seven. 
Seven  is  the  sacred  number  of  perfection.  More- 
over, the  increase  to  seven  created  an  analogy 
between  the  Catholic  Epistles  and  on  the  one  hand 
the  Apocalypse,  addressed  to  the  seven  Churches  of 
Asia  Minor,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  collection 
of  Pauline  Epistles.  For  St.  Paul,  as  it  used  often 
to  be  said,  wrote  to  seven  Churches  ;  or,  if  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  be  included  among  his  writings, 
then  his  Epistles  are  twice  seven  in  number. 
There  is  some  evidence  to  shew  that  this  full 
collection   of  seven   Catholic  Epistles   either  origin- 


THE    EPISTLE    OF    ST.    JUDE  I37 

ated  at,  or  was  first  established  in,  the  Church  of 
Jerusalem. 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Jude  and  the  Second  Epistle 
of  St.  Peter  1  were  both  included,  you  will  remember, 
among  the  books  which  Eusebius  calls  '  disputed '  ; 
and  both,  but  especially  the  latter,  present  to  the 
student  of  the  New  Testament  problems  of  peculiar 
difficulty. 

As  to  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude,  little  or  no  stress  can 
be  laid  on  supposed  coincidences  with  this  Epistle  in 
the  writings  of  the  second  century.  But  there  is  clear 
evidence  that  at  the  meeting  point  of  the  second  and 
third  centuries  it  was  accepted  as  authoritative  in  the 
Churches  of  the  countries  round  the  Mediterranean, 
at  Alexandria,  at  Carthage,  at  Rome.  In  the  third 
century,  however,  doubts  were  expressed  about  its 
apostolic  authority,  based  on  the  contents  of  the 
Epistle  itself.  At  Alexandria  Origen,  if  in  one  passage 
{in  Matt.  tom.  x.  17)  he  commends  it  as  "full  or 
strong  words  of  heavenly  grace,  though  it  be  but  a 
few  lines  in  length,"  yet  in  another  hints  at  mis- 
givings as  to  its  reception  :  "  If  any  one  should 
adduce  the  Epistle  of  Jude "  {ib.  xvii.  30).  At 
Carthage,  though  it  was  used  by  Tertullian,  yet  it  is 
ignored  in  the  writings  of  Cyprian  and  in  the  African 
list  of  New  Testament  Books  of  a  century  later.     It 

1  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  these  two  Epistles  I  may  be  allowed 
to  refer  to  my  articles  on  them  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 


138       HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

apparently  was  not  accepted  in  the  great  Biblical 
School  of  Antioch.  The  reason  of  these  suspicions 
is  not  far  to  seek.  Didymus,  the  blind  head  of  the 
Catechetical  School  of  Alexandria  about  390,  informs 
us  that  the  Epistle  was  questioned  by  some  on 
account  of  the  strange  reference  in  it  to  the  dispute 
of  the  Archangel  with  the  devil  about  the  body  of 
Moses,  a  reference  which  was  doubtless  derived  from 
an  apocryphal  Book  called  the  Assumption  of  Moses. 
Further,  we  learn  from  Jerome  that  it  was  rejected 
*  by  many '  because  it  quoted  from  the  Book  of 
Enoch.  Here  then,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, we  have  a  contrast  between  earlier  and  later 
opinion.  From  the  beginning  of  the  third  century, 
when  there  was  a  growing  tendency  in  view  of  the 
Gnostic  controversies  to  regard  all  apocryphal  writings 
with  suspicion,  the  use  of  such  writings  in  this  Epistle 
became  a  bar  to  its  recognition  as  an  authoritative 
apostolic  document.  On  the  other  hand,  considering 
the  brevity  of  the  Epistle  and  its  special  character,  it 
had  received  by  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  a 
remarkably  wide  acceptance  in  the  Church.  This 
early  acceptance,  it  will  be  observed,  may  well  em- 
body a  tradition  handed  down  from  the  Apostolic 
age. 

The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  must  be  said  to  stand 
apart  from  the  other  Books  of  the  New  Testament  in 
regard  to    the  insufficiency  of   its  external  support. 


THE    SECOND    EPISTLE    OF    ST.    PETER  I39 

With  the  internal  characteristics  of  the  Book  we  do 
not  concern  ourselves  to-day. 

In  the  extant  literature  of  the  second  century  there 
seems  to  be  no  trace  of  the  influence  of  this  Epistle, 
no  reminiscence  of  its  thought  or  language.  This 
lack  of  evidence  is  all  the  more  striking,  because  the 
style  of  the  Epistle  is  so  remarkable  that  its  phrases, 
if  known,  could  hardly  fail  to  be  remembered  ;  and, 
if  regarded  as  apostolic,  to  be  appealed  to.  The 
Epistle  would  have  been  a  controversial  armoury  for 
the  assailants  of  the  Gnostics.  Had  he  known  it  and 
regarded  it  as  authoritative,  it  could  not  but  have 
been  used,  as  the  First  and  Second  Epistles  of  St. 
John  are  used,  by  Irenaeus.  The  earliest  certain 
reference  to  the  Epistle  is  contained  in  the  words  of 
Origen  (^ap.  Eus.  H.E.  vi.  25.  8),  "Peter  has  left  one 
Epistle,  which  is  acknowledged,  and  perhaps  also  a 
second;  for  it  is  doubted."  It  is,  however,  probable 
that  the  Epistle  was  known  at  Alexandria  shortly 
before  the  time  of  Origen.  There  are  reasons  for 
thinking  that  Clement  of  Alexandria  commented  on 
2  Peter ;  but  he  also,  as  we  learn  from  Eusebius  (H.E. 
vi,  14.  i),  commented  on  the  so-called  Apocalypse  Oj 
Peter  ;  and  the  evidence  points  to  the  conclusion 
that  he  regarded  the  Epistle  in  question  as  the  com- 
panion of  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter  rather  than  of  the 
First  Epistle  of  that  Apostle. 

During  the  third  century  the  Epistle,  it  is  clear. 


I4O      HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

gained  acceptance  in  certain  churches.  We  find 
traces  of  it  in  the  works  of  Hippolytus  of  Rome,  in 
two  writers  of  Asia  Minor  (Firmilian  of  Caesarea 
in  Cappadocia  and  Methodius  of  Patara).  Frag- 
ments of  an  old  Latin  translation  of  the  Epistle  are 
extant,  but  the  translation  belongs  to  the  later  Italian 
type  of  text.  It  is  contained  in  the  two  great 
Egyptian  versions,  the  date  of  which  however  is 
uncertain. 

By  the  time  when  Eusebius  wrote  in  the  fourth 
century  the  recognition  of  seven  Catholic  Epistles 
(at  least  in  the  Churches  which  he  knew  best)  had 
become  usual.  The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  was 
accepted  at  Jerusalem,  as  Cyril's  list  shews.  But 
it  had  no  place  in  the  Canon  of  the  Syriac-speaking 
Churches  nor  in  that  of  the  Greek  school  of  Antioch. 
In  Asia  Minor,  if  2  Peter  is  included  in  the  list 
of  Gregory  Nazianzen,  yet  neither  he  nor  Gregory 
of  Nyssa  nor  Basil  the  Great  appears  to  quote  it  or 
to  refer  to  it.  Those  teachers,  whose  knowledge 
of  Christian  literature  prior  to  their  days  was 
widest,  were  conscious  how  little  support  the 
Epistle  had  in  early  writers.  Its  reception  was 
probably  due  to  the  popular  voice.  This  is  what 
we  infer  from  the  words  of  Eusebius  (^H,E.  iii.  3), 
which  also  tell  us  of  his  own  inability  to  accept  it  : 
*'  As  to  the  current  Second  Epistle  [of  Peter],  we 
have  learned  (TrapeiXrjcpa/nev)  that  it  is  not  canonical  : 


THE    CLOSE    OF    THE    CANON  I4I 

yet  since  it  seemed  useful  to  many,  it  was  studied 
along  with  the  other  Scriptures.  .  .  .  Of  the 
writings  which  bear  the  name  of  Peter  I 
recognize  one  single  Epistle  as  genuine  and 
acknowledged  by  the  elders  of  old  time.  When 
once  it  "  was  studied  with  the  other  Scriptures," 
it  could  not  fail  to  attach  itself  to  the  undisputed 
Epistle  of  Peter  ;  for  it  proclaimed  itself 
(iii.  i)  a  'Second  Epistle'  of  that  Apostle.  Thus 
the  Epistle  was  ready,  when  the  collection  of 
Catholic  Epistles  was  extended  to  seven,  to  take 
its  place  beside  that  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  which 
had  been  accepted  from  the  first. 

We  have  now  traced  in  outline  the  history  of 
the  selection  of  single  Books  and  of  the  formation 
of  the  various  groups  of  Books.  How  was  the 
final  result  attained  ?  A  different  issue,  humanly 
speaking,  would  not  have  been  an  unnatural  one. 
The  Apocalypse  might  well  have  been  excluded 
from  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  in  deference 
to  the  scruples  of  those  who  questioned  the  aposto- 
licity  of  its  teaching.  It  would  not  have  been 
surprising  if  the  smaller  group  of  Catholic  Epistles 
had  been  accepted,  and  not  the  larger  one.  The 
acknowledgment  of  the  full  Canon  of  the  New 
Testament  is  probably  due  to  two  influences,  the 
workings  of  which  synchronized. 


142       HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

We  turn  first  to  the  Greek  Churches  of  the  East. 
Among  these   Churches   Constantinople  was  in  the 
fourth  century  a  centre  of  rapidly  increasing  import- 
ance.    It  was  the  'New  Rome.'      The  Church    of 
Constantinople,  in  many  ways    the  daughter  of  the 
Church   of  Antioch,  did  not  inherit  the  doubts  of 
Antioch  as  to  the  full  Canon  of  the  New  Testament. 
Constantinople    was    the    centre    of  those    imperial 
mfluences,  which  played  so  great  a  part  in  matters 
ecclesiastical  and  religious.     The   preparation   which 
Constantine  entrusted  to  Eusebius   of   'fifty  copies 
of  the  Divine  Scriptures '  for  use  in  the  new  capital 
(Eus.  V.  c.  iv.  36)  had  important  results.     It    was 
not  unnatural  that   these  copies  should  contain   all 
the  Books  of  the  New  Testament  which  had  gained 
genera]  recognition.      A  quasi-official   standard  was 
thus  set  up  ;  and  the  distinction,  so  clearly  drawn, 
as  we  have  seen,  in  the  writings  of  Eusebius  himself 
between    'acknowledged'    and    'disputed'    Books, 
soon  became  little  more  than  a  matter  of  antiquarian 
interest. 

In  Western  Christendom  the  decisive  influences 
were  those  of  Jerome  and  of  Augustine.  The  latter, 
though  not  insensible  of  the  effect  on  the  authority 
or  the  prestige  of  a  Book  caused  by  its  rejection  in 
some  quarters  {de  Doci.  Christ,  ii.  12,  13),  yet  in 
practice  appealed,  without  distinction,  to  all  the 
Books  of  our  New  Testament.     Jerome,  as  a  student 


GRADUAL    GROWTH    OF    THE    CANON  I43 

of  earlier  Church  writers,  Greek  and  Latin,  was 
acquainted  with  the  doubts  of  scholars  as  to  certain 
Books,  but  for  the  purposes  of  instruction  and  edifi- 
cation he  puts  these  all  on  one  side,  and  uses  all  the 
Books  which  make  up  our  New  Testament  without 
any  sign  of  differentiating  between  them.  This  view, 
which  doubtless  represents  that  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  found  expression  in  the  Canon  of  the  Vulgate. 
The  publication  of  the  Vulgate  closed  the  question 
in  the  West.  The  New  Testament  Canon  of  the 
Syriac-speaking  people  still  remained  more  restricted 
in  its  range.  But  the  verdict  of  the  Greek  and 
the  verdict  of  the  Latin  Churches,  which  made 
themselves  felt  about  the  same  time,  fixed  the  limits 
of  the  New  Testament,  which  has  been  the  '  divine 
library'  of  Christendom  from  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century  to  the  present  day. 

I  bring  this  lecture  to  a  close  with  three  brief 
observations. 

( I )  The  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  as  we  have 
seen,  was  a  gradual  growth,  not  the  creation  of  any 
formal  enactment.  As  we  look  back  over  the 
history  as  a  whole,  we  can  discern  how  the  Provi- 
dence of  God  in  the  earliest  times  guarded  the 
Apostolic  writings,  and  preserved  them  from  count- 
less possibilities  of  destruction ;  and  in  later  times 
moulded  the  apparently  fortuitous  and  casual  course 


144       HISTORY    OF    CANON    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT 

of  events,  so  that,  as  the  final  result,  the  Canon 
included  the  full  sum  of  Apostolic  teaching — the 
ethical  teaching  of  St.  James,  for  example,  as  well  as 
the  spiritual  witness  of  St.  John. 

(2)  We  recognize  that  the  Books  of  the  New 
Testament  do  not  all  stand  on  the  same  level  of 
certainty  and  authority.  No  doubt  the  popular  view 
is  that  the  New  Testament  is  a  single  Book,  and  that 
there  is  no  difference  between  its  constituent  parts. 
The  study  of  the  history  of  the  growth  of  the  Canon 
does  not  support  this  opinion.  It  is  a  serious  con- 
fusion if  we  regard  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  as 
possessing  no  greater  attestation  than  the  Second 
Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  In  the  Canon  of  the  New 
Testament  there  is  the  clear  noon  of  certitude  and 
the  twilight  of  ambiguity.  Christ  gave  to  His 
Church  not  a  charter  of  infallibility,  but  the  sure 
promise  of  a  guiding  Spirit. 

(3)  We  thankfully  acknowledge  the  unique  and 
sure  position  of  those  Apostolic  writings  which  are 
the  title-deeds  of  our  Christian  faith  and  life — the 
Gospels,  the  Acts,  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  the  two 
great  Epistles  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  John.  The 
Christian  society  from  the  first  days  recognized  and. 
treasured  these  Books  as  the  work  and  the  abiding 
witness  of  the  Apostles,  and  as  such  handed  them  on 
as  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  New  Covenant  to  all 
future  generations  of  Christian  men. 


The  Dates  of  the  New  Testament 

Books. 


During  the  present  course  of  lectures  you  have  had 
put  before  you  an  account  of  the  transmission  of  the 
New  Testament  to  our  own  time,  and  of  the  process 
by  which  a  New  Testament  Canon  was  created. 
Both  lines  of  investigation  trace  the  history  of  the 
books,  to  which  we  owe  our  knowledge  of  the  origin 
and  contents  of  the  Christian  Revelation  back  to  a 
very  early  period.  Following  on  these  it  is  my  duty 
to  try  and  put  before  you  the  evidence  which  enables 
us  to  determine  within  certain  limits  the  date  at 
which  these  books  were  written.  To  any  one  who 
is  in  the  least  acquainted  with  the  subject  this  will 
seem  a  bold  thing  to  attempt  within  the  limits  of  a 
single  lecture.  He  will  know  that  volumes  have 
been  written  about  each  separate  book.  But  there  is 
sometimes  an  advantage  in  attempting  a  compre- 
hensive  view,   in    emphasising    the    essential   points, 


146    THE    DATES  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   BOOKS 

and  in  trying  to  dissociate  from  the  cloud  of  con- 
jectures and  theories  which  surround  the  subject  such 
facts  as  may  lay  some  claim  to  certainty.  The 
fundamental  question  is  this  :  There  is  a  traditional 
view,  according  to  which  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  are  the  work  of  Apostolic  or  sub- 
apostolic  authors,  and  were  written  at  different 
dates  during  the  second  half  of  the  first  century. 
There  is,  on  the  other  hand,  an  immense  amount  of 
critical  work,  which  has  set  itself  to  prove  that  all,  or 
the  greater  number,  or  at  any  rate  some  of  these 
books  were  the  product  of  the  Christian  imagination 
of  the  second  century.  We  have  not  to  attempt 
to-day  to  discuss  the  exact  date  of  each  writing,  but 
to  decide  which  of  these  views  is  correct  or  most 
nearly  correct. 

I. 

I  will  begin  with  certain  general  considerations, 
and,  in  order  to  get  a  substantial  basis  of  external 
evidence,  I  will  ask  you  to  look  at  the  Christian 
remains  of  the  beginning  of  the  second  century. 
We  possess  five  short  writings,  the  claim  of  which  to 
be  written  not  later  than  the  first  quarter  of  that 
century  may  be  considered  to  have  been  made  good. 
Of  course  I  do  not  mean  that  no  one  disputes  it, 
but  whether  one  looks  at  the  weight  of  the  argument 
by  which  it  is  supported,  or  at  the  wide  acceptance 


THE    APOSTOLIC    FATHERS THEIR    DATE         l/\.J 

which  they  have  received,  one  may  reasonably  hold 
that  this  conclusion  has  been  accepted  by  scholar- 
ship. At  any  rate  the  dates  which  I  am  going  to 
give  you  are  those  which  have  been  adopted  by  Dr. 
Abbott  in  his  article  on  the  Gospels  in  the  Encyclopaedia 
Biblica^  and  as  he  is  one  of  the  ablest  representatives 
in  England  of  the  views  which  I  believe  to  be  in- 
correct, it  is  convenient  to  have  a  starting  point  on 
which  we  are  agreed. 

The  documents  in  question  are  : 

(i)  A  letter  written  by  the  Roman  Church  to 
the  Church  of  Corinth,  generally  held  to 
be  the  work  of  a  certain  Clement,  and 
called  the  First  Epistle  of  Clement.  Its  date 
is  probably  about  96  a.d. 

(2)  Seven  Letters  of  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  Antioch, 

to  certain  churches  in  the  province  of  Asia, 
and  to  the  Church  of  Rome  about  the  year 
1 10  A.D. 

(3)  A    short    Letter    of   Poly  carp,     Bishop    of 

Smyrna,  written  about  the  same  time. 

(4)  A    curious    document,    perhaps    a    sermon, 

called  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  written  not 
later  than  125  a.d.,  and  perhaps  shortly 
after  70  a.d. 

(5)  The  recently  discovered  treatise  called  the 

Didache  or  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles, 
written,  according  to  Abbott,  between   80 


148  THE  DATES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS 

A.D.    and     no    a.d.       This    is    the    only 
document  for    which    such   an  early  date, 
although  probable,  has  not,  in  my  opinion, 
been  completely  proved.     For  it  is  com- 
posite  in    character ;    and  although    some 
portions  are  not  only  early,  but  very  early, 
the  latest  date  at  which  additions  or  inter- 
polations may  have  been  made  cannot  be 
conclusively  settled. 
Before    proceeding    to    ask    what    evidence    these 
writings  give,  I  will  ask  you  to  notice  two  or  three 
further  points.     They  are,  in  the  first  place,  exceed- 
ingly   short.       The    whole    bulk    only    occupies    in 
English  about  100  octavo  pages,  and  might  be  read 
in  two  or  three  hours.     Then  they  represent    very 
widely  different  areas — Rome,  Asia,  Syria,  probably 
Palestine  and  Egypt.     And  then,  thirdly,  they  were 
written    at    a    time    when    the    Christian    Scriptures 
were    normally    at    any    rate    the    Old    Testament 
writings.     This   is  of  course  itself  a  proof  of  their 
early  age.     They  were  written  by   men   who   owed 
their  Christianity  to  the  oral  teaching  of  the  Apostles 
themselves  and  their  immediate  followers,  and  hence 
the  use  of  the  New  Testament  books  is  mainly  inci- 
dental.     When   these   facts   are   remembered  it  will 
be  seen    how   very  important  and   how  strong    the 
evidence,    which     we    shall     proceed     to     examine, 
really  is. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS THEIR  TEACHING      I49 

It  is  of  three  kinds.  There  is  first  of  all  their 
witness  to  the  subject  matter  of  the  New  Testament, 
to  the  Christian  Faith  and  the  Gospel  History. 
There  is,  secondly,  their  witness  to  the  different  types 
of  teaching  given  in  the  New  Testament.  And  then, 
thirdly,  there  is  their  testimony  to  the  actual  words 
and  language  of  the  books  which  we  possess. 

(1)  The  Apostolic  Fathers  taught  and  preached 
just  the  same  gospel  that  we  now  read  in  the  New 
Testament,  i.e.  the  same  teaching  about  the  life  of 
Christ,  about  the  doctrinal  significance  of  that  life, 
and  the  moral  obligations  of  Christianity. 

Let  me  take  an  instance  from  Ignatius  :  "I  give 
glory  to  Jesus  Christ,  the  God  who  bestowed  such 
wisdom  upon  you  ;  for  I  have  perceived  that  ye  are 
established  in  faith  immoveable,  being  as  it  were 
nailed  to  the  Cross  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  flesh 
and  in  spirit,  and  firmly  grounded  in  love  in  the 
blood  of  Christ,  fully  persuaded  as  touching  our  Lord 
that  he  is  truly  of  the  race  of  David  according  to  the 
flesh,  but  Son  of  God  by  the  Divine  will  and  power, 
truly  born  of  a  virgin  and  baptized  by  John  that  a/l 
righteousness  might  be  fulfilled  by  Him,  truly  nailed 
up  in  the  flesh  for  our  sakes  under  Pontius  Pilate 
and  Herod  the  tetrarch  (of  which  fruit  are  we — that 
is  of  His  most  blessed  passion) ;  that  He  might  set  up 
an  ensign  unto  all  the  ages  through  His  resurrection, 
for  His   saints  and  faithful   people,  whether  among 


150     THE   DATES  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS 

Jews  or  among  Gentiles,  in  the  body  of  His  Church. 
For  He  suffered  all  these  things  for  our  sakes  ;  and 
He  suffered  truly  as  also  He  raised  Himself  truly."  ^ 

Now  here  we  have  substantially  the  Gospel  as  we 
know  it,  and  it  must,  I  think,  be  perfectly  evident 
that  the  writer  of  this  passage,  if  he  had  not  the  same 
gospels  as  we  have,  had  documents  which  told  exactly 
the  same  message.  Moreover,  every  characteristic 
of  style  and  reflection  shows  that  this  passage  is  later 
than  the  Gospel  story. 

Bishop  Westcott  in  his  History  of  the  Canon 
has  summed  up  for  us  the  knowledge  of  the  Gospel 
shown  in  the  Apostolic  Fathers. 

"  The  *  Gospel '  which  the  Fathers  announce 
includes  all  the  articles  of  the  ancient  Creeds. 
Christ,  we  read,  our  God,  the  Word,  the  Lord  and 
Creator  of  the  World,  who  was  with  the  Father  before 
time  began,  humbled  Himself  and  came  down  from 
heaven,  and  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  and  was  born 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  of  the  race  of  David  according 
to  the  flesh  ;  and  a  star  of  exceeding  brightness 
appeared  at  His  birth.  Afterwards  He  was  baptized 
by  John,  to  fulfil  all  righteousness  ;  and  then,  speak- 
ing His  Father's  message.  He  invited  not  the  right- 
eous, but  sinners,  to  come  to  Him.  Perfume  was 
poured  over  His  head^  an  emblem  of  the  immortality 
which  He  breathed  on  the  Church.    At  length,  under 

^Ignatius,  Smyjn.  i.  (Lightfoot's  translation). 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS THEIR  TEACHING      I5I 

Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate,  He  was  crucified,  and 
vinegar  and  gall  were  offered  Him  to  drink.  But  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week  He  rose  from  the  dead,  the 
first  fruits  of  the  grave  ;  and  many  prophets  were 
raised  by  Him  for  whom  they  had  waited.  After  His 
resurrection  He  ate  with  His  disciples  and  showed 
them  that  He  was  not  an  incorporeal  spirit.  And  He 
ascended  into  heaven  and  sat  down  on  the  right  hand 
of  the  Father,  and  thence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the 
quick  and  the  dead.  "  ^ 

(2)  But  this  indebtedness  to  Apostolic  teaching  is 
still  more  marked.  There  are,  apart  from  the  Gospel 
narratives,  five  main  types  of  teaching  in  the  New 
Testament.  That  of  St.  Paul,  of  St.  James,  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  of  St.  Peter,  and  St.  John. 
Of  these  five  types  four  are  presupposed  and  harmon- 
ized in  the  Epistle  of  Clement,  and  the  fifth,  that  of 
St.  John  has  influenced  the  Epistles  of  St.  Ignatius. 
Clement  co-ordinates  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.  He 
combines  their  favourite  expressions.  He  is  largely 
indebted  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  He  states 
the  doctrine  of  justification  in  all  its  antithetical 
fulness,  combining  the  views  and  the  instances  of  St. 
James  and  St.  Paul. 

"  The  theory  of  justification,"  writes  Bishop 
Westcott,  "  is  stated  in  its  antithetical  fulness.     The 

1  A  History  of  the  Canon  of  the  Nezv  Testament ^  hy  Brooke  Foss 
Westcott,  p.  53,  Edn,  5,  1881, 


152    THE   DATES  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   BOOKS 

same  examples  are  used  as  in  the  Canonical  Epistles, 
and  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  James  is 
coincidentally  affirmed.  '  Through  faith  and  hospi- 
tality a  son  was  given  to  Abraham  in  old  age,  and  by 
obedience    he    offered    him    a    sacrifice     to     God.' 

*  Through   faith   and   hospitality   Rahab   was  saved.' 

*  We  are  not  justified  by  ourselves  .  .  .  nor  by  works 
which  we  have  wrought  in  holiness  of  heart,  but  by 
our  faith,  by  which  Almighty  God  justified  all  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world.'  Shortly  afterwards 
Clement  adds  in  the  Spirit  of  St.  James,  '  Let  us  then 
work  from  our  whole  heart  the  work  of  righteous- 
ness.' And  the  same  tenor  of  thought  reappears  in 
the  continual  reference  to  the  fear  of  God  as  instru- 
mental in  the  accomplishment  of  these  good  works."  ^ 

If  we  pass  to  Ignatius,  while  it  is  on  the  teaching 
of  St.  Paul  that  his  thoughts  are  built  up — *  The 
image  of  St.  Paul  is  stamped  alike  upon  their  language 
and  doctrine ' — he  is  also  acquainted  with  and 
influenced  by  the  mode  of  thought  peculiar  to  St.  John. 

"  Love  is  '  the  stamp  of  the  Christian.'  '  Faith  is 
the  beginning,  and  love  the  end  of  life.'  '  Faith  is 
our  guide  upward,  but  love  is  the  road  that  leads  to 
God.'     '  The  Word   is   the   manifestation    of  God,' 

*  the  door  by  which  we  come  to  the  Father,'  '  and 
without  Him  v/e  have  not  the  principle  of  true  life.' 

*  The  Spirit  is  not  led  astray,  as  being  from   God. 

^  Westcott,  op.  cit.  p.  25, 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS THEIR  SOURCES      I  53 

For  it  knoweth  whence  it  cometh  and  whither  it 
goeth  and  telleth  that  which  is  hidden.'  The  true 
meat  of  the  Christian  is  the  '  bread  of  God,  the  bread 
of  heaven,  the  bread  of  life,  which  is  the  flesh  of  Jesus 
Christ,'  and  his  drink  is  *  Christ's  blood,  which  is  love 
incorruptible.'  He  has  no  love  of  this  life  ;  '  his  love 
has  been  crucified,  and  he  has  in  him  no  burning 
passion  for  the  world,  but  living  water,  speaking 
within  him,  and  bidding  him  come  to  his  Father.' 
Meanwhile  his  enemy  is  the  enemy  of  his  Master, 
even  the  '  ruler  of  this  age.'  "  ^ 

Now  we  may  state  the  problem  in  this  way. 
Here  are  a  series  of  writers  of  the  sub-apostolic 
Age,  all  of  them  professing  to  give  the  teaching  of 
the  Apostles.  They  write,  allowing  for  differences 
of  style  and  method  of  thought,  just  as  an  orthodox 
Christian  might  at  the  present  day  with  the  New 
Testament  before  him.  They  have  their  individual 
peculiarities.  Some  are  more,  some  less  original. 
But  their  doctrine  and  theological  teaching  are  the 
same.  Where  did  they  get  it  from  ?  The  natural 
answer  is,  from  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
which  we  now  possess,  and  from  which  we  can  get 
the  same  teaching.  They  had,  it  is  true,  the  advan- 
tage of  remembering  some  oral  tradition,  but  oral 
tradition  would  have  confined  them  to  one  or  two 
lines  of  thought.     With   these    writers    Christianity 

1  Westcott,  op.  cit,  p.  35. 


154     THE   DATES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT   BOOKS 

has  already  become  Catholic.  Different  strains  of 
teaching  are  combined.  If  we  had  no  New  Testa- 
ment, we  should  have  to  assume  one  to  explain  the 
phenomena  of  their  writings,  and  if  they  did  not 
use  the  books  which  we  still  possess  they  must 
have  had  others  with  the  same  contents  and  the  same 
teaching. 

(3)  But,  thirdly,  our  case  is  stronger  still.  There 
are  in  the  writings  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  a  large 
number  of  resemblances  in  language  to  almost  all 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  In  some  cases 
the  quotations  are  full,  in  others  slight  ;  in  some 
they  are  more  exact  than  in  others,  but  they  extend 
over  the  whole  range  of  the  New  Testament,  with  the 
exception  of  three  or  four  of  the  smaller  books. ^ 
In  some  cases  the  evidence  is  far  less  full  than  in 
others.  I  am  only  now  asking  you  to  look  at  it  as  a 
whole,  and  I  would  put  it  before  you  as  a  result  of 
the  examination  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  that 
they  imply  something  very  like  our  New  Testament, 
that  the  natural,  I  will  not  say  certain,  deduction 
from  this  line  of  investigation  is  that  the  books  of 
the    New    Testament    were    mainly    written    in    the 


1  The  strength  and  value  of  this  evidence  may  to  some  extent 
be  recognized  by  the  list  of  quotations  given  in  the  Appendix,  in 
which  passages  from  the  Apostolic  Fathers  are  placed  side  by  side 
with  verses  of  the  New  Testament,  to  which  the  writers  appeared 
to  be  indebted. 


TEXTUAL    CORRUPTION  I  55 

first  century,  and  recognized  in  the  Christian 
Churches  as  authoritative,  I  will  not  say  canonical, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  May  I 
add  that  if  you  wish  to  understand  the  early  history 
of  Christianity,  a  careful  study  of  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  which  are  all  perfectly  accessible  in  the 
excellent  translations  and  editions  of  Bishop  Light- 
foot,  will  be  far  more  profitable  than  pages  of 
magazine  articles  and  popular  pamphlets,  which 
are  often  singularly  ignorant. 

While  we  are  still  considering  the  New  Testa- 
ment generally,  I  should  like  to  mention  two  further 
arguments  which  are  making  careful  enquirers  feel 
more  and  more  clearly  that  the  evidence  requires 
them  to  trace  back  the  writings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment into  the  first  century.  The  one  is  the  history 
of  the  Canon,  the  other  the  result  of  New 
Testament  criticism.  By  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  (if  not  earlier)  our  Gospels  were  in  all  proba- 
bility collected  together  as  one  book,  and  that  in 
a  text  which  had  already  begun  to  be  corrupted.  I 
will  quote  in  support  of  this  some  remarks  of  von 
Dobschiitz  in  a  review  of  Mr.  Burkitt's  ^wo  Lectures 
on  the  Gospels  in  the  Theologische  Literaturzeitung, 
a  leading  German  review  :  "  Burkitt^s  results  lie 
exactly  in  the  line  of  the  observations,  which  in  every 
direction — and  not  merely  in  Textual  criticism — have 
forced  themselves  upon  me  as  the  result  of  the  most 


156     THE   DATES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT   BOOKS 

recent  research.  We  are  continually  being  forced 
onward  right  to  the  very  beginnings  and  origins. 
We  have  learnt  to  place  the  beginnings  of  text 
corruption,  and  also  of  the  misinterpretation  of  the 
Gospels,  not  in  the  fourth  century,  not  even  in  the 
second  century,  but  already  in  the  first." ^  This  line 
of  argument  is  somewhat  subtle,  and  requires  a 
certain  amount  of  special  knowledge  to  appreciate, 
but  it  is  probably  more  certain  than  many  more 
obvious  forms  of  evidence. 

II. 

We  will  pass  now  from  the  general  question  to 
the  different  groups  of  books,  and  will  begin  with 
the  thirteen  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  On  both  external 
and  internal  grounds  these  can  be  dated  with  more 
certainty  than  perhaps  any  other  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  they  need  not  detain  us  long. 
Their  use  by  the  Apostolic  Fathers  is  clear  and 
undoubted.  There  are  quotations  trom  all  of  them, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Epistle  to  Philemon.  Of 
certain  books  they  are  slight  and  not  such  as  stress 
could  be  laid  on  if  they  were  alone.  Of  the  more  im- 
portant, of  Romans,  of  I.  Corinthians,  and  Ephesians, 
the  use  is  large.  It  is  difficult  to  avoid  believing  that 
Polycarp  had  a  collection  of  the  Epistles  including 
the  Pastorals.  Of  the  question  of  style  and  doctrine 
^  Theologische  Liter aturxeitung,  1902,  1.  p.  21 


THE    PAULINE    EPISTLES  1 57 

I  need  only  speak  shortly,  as  Dr.  Sanday  has  already 
treated  that  subject.  They  divide  internally  into  four 
groups  corresponding  to  four  periods  in  St.  Paul's 
life.  They  have  a  remarkable  and  distinct  resemblance 
both  in  teaching  and  style,  and  also  certain  differences 
which  correspond  exactly  to  these  different  chrono- 
logical divisions.  They  reveal  in  all  cases  a  marked 
and  striking  personality,  and  imply  rather  than  narrate 
a  series  of  circumstances  which  fit  into  the  narrative 
as  we  possess  it  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  I  am 
not  going  now  to  discuss  the  exact  date  to  which  each 
can  be  assigned,  that  would  necessarily  lead  us  to 
a  number  of  minute  and  often  doubtful  points,  which 
would  be  irrelevant  to  our  present  purpose.  I  will 
give  you  the  approximate  date  for  each  group  : 

I.  Epistles  of  the  Second  Missionary  Journey,  I. 
and  II.  Thessalonians,  48-51  a.d. 

II.  Epistles  of  the  Third  Missionary  Journey, 
Galatians,  I.  and  II.  Corinthians,  Romans,  50-58  a.d. 

III.  Epistles  of  the  Captivity,  57-61  a.d. 

IV.  The  Pastoral  Epistles,  58-64  a.d.^ 

With  regard  to  these,  I  hardly  think  it  necessary  to 
apologize  for  treating  them  as  genuine,  with  the 
exception  perhaps  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  On  these 
I  would  say  : 

(i.)  The  great  difficulty  to  me  has  always  been  the 

^ These  dates  represent  the  outside  limits  according  to  different 
systems  of  chronology. 


158     THE   DATES   OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   BOOKS 

question  of  the  release  and  second  imprisonment  ;  it 
was  difficult  to  find  room  for  them  before  the 
Neronian  persecutions  in  64.  But  a  series  of  chrono- 
logical investigations,  made  by  Mr.  Turner  in  England 
and  Professor  Harnack  in  Germany,  have  tended  to 
throw  the  dates  of  St.  Paul's  life  further  back.  They 
depend  upon  the  date  at  which  Festus  succeeded 
Felix,  which  is  now  put  in  SSl S^  instead  of  as  late 
as  60  or  61.  This  leaves  ample  room  in  St.  Paul's 
life  for  the  later  activity  implied  by  the  Pastoral 
Epistles. 

(ii.)  The  differences  of  style  and  subject  matter  are 
hardly  greater  than  between  other  groups  of  the 
Pauline  Epistles,  and  may  be  quite  sufficiently 
accounted  for  by  the  later  date  and  the  different  style 
and  character  of  the  writings. 

(iii.)  The  external  evidence  for  the  letters  is  very 
good. 

(iv.)  The  argument  against  their  genuineness,  based 
on  the  supposed  developed  ecclesiastical  conditions,  is  a 
very  precarious  one,  and  we  have  really  no  knowledge 
which  enables  us  to  condemn  a  document  on  such 
grounds.  It  is  an  argument  of  an  a  priori  character 
and  often  means  arguing  in  a  circle.  But  I  should  be 
inclined  to  say  that  the  Pastoral  Epistles  represent  an 
early  and  primitive  type  of  organization,  very  much 
earlier  than  that  of  the  Ignatius  letters,  and  that  they 
must  be  put  certainly  one  generation  earlier  than  the 


THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS  1 59 

latter.     They  represent  much  the  same  stage  as  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

(v.)  Even  those  who  deny  their  genuineness,  for 
the  most  part  consider  that  there  is  a  primitive 
nucleus,  which  they  date  to  these  closing  years  of  St. 
Paul's  life.  If  that  is  once  admitted  to  be  possible, 
every  solid  argument  against  their  genuineness 
vanishes.^ 

III. 

It  will  be  convenient  to  take  next  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  both  because  the  problem  that  it 
presents  is  for  us  a  fairly  simple  one,  and  because  it 
naturally,  if  incorrectly,  groups  itself  with  the  Epistles 
of  St.  Paul.  Amongst  much  that  is  obscure  there 
are  two  things  fairly  certain — one,  that  it  was  not 
and  could  not  have  been  written  by  St.  Paul  ;  the 
other,  that  it  must  have  been  written  before  the  close 
of  the  first  century.  There  is  no  book  the  early  date 
of  which  is  better  attested.  When  we  come  to  ask 
further    questions    we    soon    reach    the    uncertain — 


1  It  is  difficult  to  know  whether  it  is  necessary  to  treat  seriously 
the  opinions  put  forward  by  von  Manen,  and  accessible  for  English 
readers  in  an  article  by  himself  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  III. 
3620-3638  :  "With  respect  to  the  Canonical  Epistles  the  later 
criticism  .  .  .  has  learned  to  recognize  that  they  are  none  of 
them  by  Paul."  These  views  have  attained  no  assent  outside  his 
own  circle,  and  are  not  supported  by  any  arguments  which 
need  refutation. 


l6o  THE  DATES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS 

"  Who  wrote  it  ? "  as  Origen  says,  "  God  only 
knows."  Where  it  was  written,  to  whom  it  was 
written  are  equally  doubtful.  Harnack  has  recently 
startled  us  by  suggesting  that  it  was  a  woman  that 
wrote  it.  There  is  one  question,  however,  which 
it  may  be  worth  attempting  to  answer — Was  it 
written  before  or  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem ?  On  this  point  opinion  may  reasonably 
be  divided.  My  own  opinion  has  varied  some- 
what, but  I  feel  that  the  preponderating  evidence  is 
in  favour  of  the  earlier  date.  We  cannot,  I  think, 
lay  stress  on  the  fact  that  the  rites  of  the  Jewish 
temple  are  spoken  of  in  the  present  tense.  That 
might  be  an  ordinary  historic  present.  But  we  can, 
I  think,  say  perfectly  reasonably  that  it  would  be 
astonishing  that  such  an  Epistle  could  be  written  after 
the  destruction  of  the  Temple  without  any  reference 
to  that  event.  But  still  more  striking,  I  think,  is 
the  aim  of  the  Epistle.  The  difficulty  of  those  who 
are  addressed  is  the  feeling  of  being  cut  off  from 
the  rites  of  the  Temple  and  the  Jewish  ordin- 
ances. Surely  if  the  writer  was  able  to  point  to 
the  judgment  of  God  in  their  discontinuance  his 
argument  would  hardly  have  been  necessary.  But 
this  remains  a  matter  of  opinion.  To  some  the 
Epistle  seems  to  be  directed  to  the  situation  caused 
by  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  While  inclined 
personally   to   date   the    Epistle    between    the   years 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS  l6l 

6^    and    70,    reasonable    criticism    must    allow    the 
margin  65-90. 

ly. 

We  now  pass  to  a  section  of  the  New  Testament 
where  there  is  wider  room  for  controversy,  viz.,  the 
Synoptic   Gospels   and    the    Acts    of    the    Apostles. 
I  will  begin  with  the  writings  ascribed  to  St.  Luke, 
because  here,  as  has  been  generally  recognized,  is  a 
fixed  point.     There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  third 
Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  were  written 
by  the   same  person ;  they  clearly  claim  to   be,  and 
there  Is  a  marked  and  striking  unity  of  style.     They 
are  the  most  literary,  the  most  carefully  composed, 
the  most  Hellenic   of  all  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament.     But,  further,  the  writer  must  have  been 
a  companion  of  St.  Paul.     There  are,  as  you  know 
well,  certain  sections  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in 
which  the  narrative  passes  into  the  first  person  plural, 
and  no  explanation  of  the  existence  of  these  sections 
is    satisfactory,  except    that  which   makes   them  the 
work  of  the  author  of  the  book  writing  naturally  in 
the  first  person  plural,  because  he  was  at  that  point 
a  companion  of  St.  Paul.     It  might  be  argued  (as 
it  has  been)  that  here  we  have  extracts  from  a  diary 
— but  the  style  is  identical  in  these  sections  with  that 
of  the  rest  of  the  book  ;    or   that  the   first  person 
was  introduced  for  the  sake  of  vraisemblance^  but  in 

L 


1 62    THE    DATES  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   BOOKS 

that  case  how  do  we  account  for  the  fact  that  just  in 
these  sections  the  narrative  in  its  fulness  of  detail,  in 
its  accuracy,  its  vividness,  and  knowledge  bears  all  the 
marks  of  being  the  work  of  one  eye-witness  ?  I  feel 
personally  quite  confident  of  the  correctness  of  the 
conclusion,  which  is  that  of  Ramsay,  of  Blass,  of  Renan, 
beside  orthodox  writers,  in  fact  of  all  but  certain 
extreme  writers  on  the  other  side,  that  these  two 
books  were  written  by  a  companion  of  St.  Paul. 
The  earliest  date  for  the  Acts  must  be  after  the  close 
of  the  two  years  mentioned  in  the  concluding  chapter, 
i.e.  about  the  year  60 ;  the  latest  date  will  be  8  5-90. 
The  Gospel  of  St.  Luke  must  be  earlier,  but  not 
necessarily  very  much  earlier  than  the  Acts.  The 
only  strong  argument  for  a  long  interval  between  the 
composition  of  the  two  books  would  be  certain  differ- 
ences of  vocabulary  between  them,  but  that  may,  I 
think,  be  discounted  by  the  very  different  subject- 
matter  of  the  two  writings,  and  by  the  fact  that 
certainly  the  Gospels,  and  in  part  perhaps  the  Acts, 
have  their  style  very  largely  influenced  by  the  sources 
used  by  the  writer. 

Have  we  any  possibility  of  dating  them  more 
exactly }  There  are  two  more  or  less  conflicting 
arguments : 

(i)  Many  writers  have  assumed  that  the  somewhat 
abrupt  ending  of  the  Acts,  leaving  St.  Paul  preaching 
at  Rome,  arose  from  the  fact  that  the  book  was  written 


ST.    LUKE    AND    THE    ACTS  1 63 

and  finished  during  these  two  years.  But  this  is  not 
an  argument  on  which  any  real  stress  can  be  laid, 
since,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Acts  ends  where  it  does 
because  the  writer  has  brought  St.  Paul  to  Rome,  and 
thus  fulfilled  his  purpose  of  describing  the  spread  of 
Christianity  to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  world. 

(2)  An  argument  for  a  later  date  of  the  Gospel 
is  found  in  a  comparison  of  Luke  xxi.  20,  with  Matt. 
xxiv.  15,  Mark  xiii.  14,  where  the  words,  "When 
ye  see  the  abomination  of  desolation  standing  where 
it  ought  not,"  seem  to  be  interpreted  by  St.  Luke  as 
"  When  you  see  Jerusalem  compassed  with  armies.'' 
It  has  been  held  to  imply  that  St.  Luke  was  inter- 
preting the  prophecy  by  the  event,  and  that  therefore 
the  Gospel  was  written  after  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem. 
But  here  again  no  decisive  conclusion  can  be  drawn. 
The  phrase  in  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  would  be 
obscure  and  unmeaning  to  a  Gentile  reader,  and  St. 
Luke  may  well  have  interpreted  it  in  a  natural  way, 
even  before  the  event  had  happened,  or  when  it 
seemed  only  imminent. 

Neither  of  these  arguments  is  conclusive,  and  so 
far  we  must  be  content  with  the  limits  given  above. 
Only  with  regard  to  the  Acts,  I  should  be  inclined  to 
suggest  that,  judging  by  the  early  and  undeveloped 
character  of  the  religious  phraseology,  the  complete 
absence  of  any  developed  form  of  organization,  the 
absence  of  any  allusion  to  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and 


164    THE  DATES  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   BOOKS 

the  favourable  view  held  of  the  character  of  the  civil 
government,  we  are  not  justified  in  placing  it  very- 
late. 

The  date  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  so  far  as  it  is  settled, 
will  help  us  to  the  date  of  St.  Mark's.  There  are  not 
many  results  of  the  modern  study  of  the  formation 
of  the  Gospel  which  are  firmly  established,  but  there 
are  one  or  two  on  which  we  can  rely.  The  old  idea 
that  St.  Mark's  Gospel  was  a  shortened  version  of  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Luke  may  be  dismissed.  We  may 
accept  it  as  certain  that  the  common  matter  of  the 
three  Gospels  was  derived  from  an  original  which 
differed  little  if  at  all  from  St.  Mark.  I  have  no 
doubt  myself  that  it  was  St.  Mark.  If  this  be  so,  it 
must  date  from  a  period  earlier  than  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem.  Irenaeus^  tells  us  that  after  the  death  of 
St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  Mark  the  disciple  and  inter- 
preter of  Peter,  handed  down  to  us  in  writing  the 
things  which  had  been  announced  by  Peter.  This,  if 
true,  would  give  the  date  shortly  after  the  year  64, 
and  the  statement  corresponds  with  all  such  internal 
evidence  as  we  have.  St.  Luke's  Gospel  and  St. 
Matthew's  must  both  then  be  somewhat  later. 

Let   us  turn  now  to  St.  Matthew,  and,  to  begin 

with,   look  at  the  external  evidence  that  you  have 

before  you.^    I  have  not  referred  to  it  with  regard  to 

St.   Luke,  St.    Mark,  or  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 

^  Irenaeus,  /;/  Omn.  Nav.  III.  i,  2.  -  See  Appendix. 


ST.    MATTHEW  1 65 

because,  although  what  are  probably  quotations  from 
or  references  to  these  books  are  to  be  found  in  the 
Apostolic  Fathers,  they  are  not  sufficient  to  rely  on. 
But  when  we  turn  to  St.  Matthew  the  case  is,  it  seems 
to  me,  different.  There  are  many  quotations  from  the 
Gospel  narrative,  and  almost  all  resemble  the  words 
of  our  present  St.  Matthew.  It  is  quite  true,  of 
course,  that  the  quotations  are  not  always  accurate, 
and  that  passages  from  different  places  have  been 
grouped  together,  but  the  same  writers  quote  the  Old 
Testament  inaccurately,  and  group  together  passages 
from  the  different  Pauline  Epistles.  It  is  possible 
that  the  influence  of  oral  tradition  may  be  present 
in  some  cases,  but  substantially  almost  all  the  quota- 
tions resemble  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  more  or  less 
accurately.  Either  they  come  from  St.  Matthew  or 
from  another  Gospel  wonderfully  like  it,  and  it  is 
quite  contrary  to  the  truest  principles  of  criticism, 
when  there  is  a  quite  adequate  and  satisfactory  source 
in  existence,  to  go  out  of  our  way  to  invent  another 
document  and  discard  that  which  we  have  before  us. 
One  point  more.  There  are  in  Ignatius  two 
references  to  the  Gospel  narrative  which  have  been 
held  to  be  apocryphal.  One  is  a  passage  in  which 
our  Lord  is  represented  as  saying  after  his  resurrec- 
tion :  "  Lay  hold  and  handle  me,  and  see  that  I  am 
not  a  demon  without  body."  ^  The  other  is  as 
^  Ignatius,  Smyr.  3. 


1 66    THE   DATES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT   BOOKS 

follows  :  "A  Star  shone  forth  in  the  heaven  above 
all  the  stars  ;  and  its  light  was  unutterable,  and  its 
strangeness  caused  amazement ;  and  all  the  rest  of 
the  constellations  with  the  sun  and  moon  formed 
themselves  into  a  chorus  about  the  star  ;  but  the  star 
itself  far  outshone  them  all ;  and  there  was  perplexity 
to  know  whence  came  this  strange  appearance  which 
was  so  unlike  them.  From  that  time  forward  every 
wrong  and  every  spell  was  dissolved,  the  ignorance  of 
wickedness  vanished  away,  the  ancient  kingdom  was 
pulled  down,  when  God  appeared  in  the  likeness  of 
man  with  newness  of  everlasting  life ;  and  that 
which  had  been  perfected  in  the  counsels  of  God 
began  to  take  effect.  Thence  all  things  were  per- 
turbed because  the  abolishing  of  death  v/as  taken  in 
hand."  ^ 

My  own  belief  is  that  these  passages  arise  from  a 
somewhat  vigorous  imagination  working  on  the 
narratives  we  possess.  But  suppose  for  a  moment 
that  they  come  from  a  Gospel  which  we  do  not 
possess.  Then  it  must  clearly  be  not  a  source  or 
simpler  form  of  the  narrative,  but  a  later  working  up. 
If  Ignatius  had  another  Gospel,  those  v/e  possess  must 
be  very  much  earlier. 

I  believe  then  that  our  St.  Matthew  was  used  by 
Ignatius,  Polycarp,  the  Didache^  Barnabas,  and 
probably  Clement,  and  that  its  date  therefore  must  be 
^  Ignatius,  Eph.  19. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS  167 

thrown  well  back  into  the  first  century.  For  more 
exact  dating  the  evidence  is  precarious.  The  exact 
relation  of  the  Eschatological  passages  to  the  events 
of  70  has  been  used  to  prove  that  the  Gospel  was 
written  shortly  before  or  after  that  year.  The  date 
is  a  probable  one,  but  not  certain,  and  I  prefer  for 
the  present  to  be  satisfied  with  the  conclusion  that  it 
was  written  before  the  year  80,  and  with  the  general 
conclusion  that  the  three  Synoptic  Gospels  probably 
date  from  the  years  60  to  80. 

If  we  turn  for  just  a  moment  to  the  internal 
evidence,  there  is  one  broad  circumstance  which  I 
should  like  to  bring  before  you  as  corroborating  the 
early  date  both  of  the  composition  of  the  Gospels  and 
their  subject-matter,  and  that  is  their  distinctly  primi- 
tive character.  There  is  an  almost  complete  absence 
of  any  later  theological  terminology.  Our  Lord  is 
ordinarily  designated  by  the  personal  name  Jesus. 
The  term  ^pLcrro^  is  never  used  as  a  personal  name  even 
as  it  is  in  St.  Paul.  You  have  only  to  compare  these 
Gospels  with  the  document  called  the  Gospel  of 
Peter  to  see  the  complete  difference  of  character,  and 
to  be  convinced  of  their  comparatively  early  date. 

There  is  just  one  more  point  to  which  I  should  like 
to  refer.  You  will  sometimes  see  it  stated  of  the 
Gospels  that  they  belong  to  this  or  that  date  with  the 
exception  of  certain  later  additions.  You  will 
generally  find  that   the   passages   suggested  as  later 


I  68    THE   DATES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT   BOOKS 

interpretations,  are  just  those  which  happen  to  conflict 
with  the  writer's  particular  prejudices,  but  you 
naturally  feel  uneasy  at  the  suggestion,  and  want  to 
know  whether  there  is  any  room  for  such  suspicions. 
My  own  opinion  is  that  there  is  not.  The  reason 
that  I  would  give  is  as  follows  :  We  know  pretty 
well  the  history  of  the  text  of  the  four  Gospels  back 
to  the  year  i  ^o,  and  we  know  that  there  were  at  that 
time  at  least  two  different  types  of  text  in  existence. 
But  the  common  parent  of  these  texts  takes  us  back  to 
somewhere  very  near  the  archetype.  And  it  is  very 
unlikely  that  there  should  be  many  interpolations 
which  are  preserved  in  all  the  different  documents 
supporting  both  these  types  of  text.  Textual 
criticism  has  probably  already  eliminated  every  verse 
and  passage  which  were  not  part  of  the  original 
text  as  they  issued  from  the  writer's  hand.  The 
attempts  which  have  been  made  to  mix  up  the 
lower  and  higher  criticism  have  almost  invariably 
failed. 

To  settle  the  dates  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  is  only 
the  first  stage  in  a  very  difficult  investigation  ;  yet  I 
believe,  if  we  can  agree  to  regard  the  limits  of  the 
dates  I  have  named,  60 — 80,  as  correct,  and  will  work 
backwards  from  then  our  study  will  be  much  more 
likely  to  be  productive  of  results  than  if  we  entangle 
ourselves  in  the  vagaries  of  a  criticism  that 
habitually  puts  everything  impossibly  late. 


THE    JOHANNINE    WRITINGS  1 69 

IV. 

We  pass  now  to  the  problems  connected  with  the 
Johannine  literature.  There  are  five  books 
associated  with  the  name  of  John  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  Apocalypse,  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
and  three  Epistles.  The  intricacy  of  the  problems 
they  present  turns  on  two  questions.  While  a 
marked  unity  of  style  makes  it  clear  that  the  Fourth 
Gospel  and  the  three  Epistles  emanated  from  the 
same  source,  there  are  certainly  very  marked 
differences  between  these  and  the  Apocalypse.  But 
yet  there  is  no  need  for  thinking  that  these  differences 
are  fundamental,  or  impossible  to  reconcile  with 
unity  of  authorship,  for  Professor  Harnack,  for 
example,  although  assigning  none  of  these  writings 
to  the  Apostle  John,  assigns  them  all  to  the  same 
author,  John  the  Presbyter.  The  second  series  of 
difficulties  arise  from  the  relations  of  the  narrative  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel  to  that  in  the  other  three. 

Into  these  two  questions  I  wish  to  enter  as  little  as 
possible.  Each  of  them  could  demand  a  lecture,  or 
rather  many  lectures  for  themselves.  I  want  rather 
to  try  and  discover  what  external  or  internal 
evidences  of  date  there  may  be  which  may  perhaps 
give  us  a  stable  position  from  which  to  attack  the 
more  intricate  problems. 

Of  the  Apocalypse  we  have  evidence  both  clear  and 


lyO    THE   DATES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS 

early.  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  dialogue  with  Trypho, 
the  Jew,  written  shortly  after  the  year  150,  mentions 
it  as  follows  :  "  And  afterwards  also  amongst  us  a 
certain  man  whose  name  was  John,  one  of  the  apostles 
of  the  Christ,  in  a  Revelation  which  came  to  him 
prophesied  that  those  who  believed  in  our  Christ 
should  pass  a  thousand  years  in  Jerusalem,  and  after 
that  there  should  be  the  universal  and,  to  speak 
shortly,  eternal  resurrection  of  all  men  together  and  the 
judgment."  ^  The  words  '  amongst  us '  naturally  mean 
'at  Ephesus,'  the  scene  of  the  dialogue,  where  Justin 
himself  had  lived  some  years  before  between  the  years 
130  and  140.  To  this  evidence  of  Justin  we  can  add 
the  more  explicit  testimony  of  Irenaeus.  He  tells 
us  that  "  it  is  not  long  ago  when  it  was  written,  but 
almost  in  our  own  generation,  at  the  end  of 
Domitian's  reign."  Elsewhere  he  quotes  Rev.  i. 
12,  17,  ascribing  it  to  John  the  disciple  of  the  Lord, 
and  describes  him  as  he  who  lay  on  the  Lord's  breast 
at  supper. 

The  evidence,  then,  is  that  the  Apocalypse  was 
written  in  Asia  by  a  person  named  John,  who  could 
be  described  as  the  apostle  or  disciple  of  the  Lord,  and 
that  it  was  written  at  the  close  of  Domitian's  reign, 
that  is  during  the  years  90-96.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  this  date  is  the  conclusion  to  which 
criticism    is    strongly    tending.       While    Baur    and 

^Justin,  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  81. 


THE    JOHANNINE    WRITINGS  I7I 

those  who  followed  him  were  inclined  to  assign  the 
Apocalypse  to  the  time  of  Nero,  almost  all  modern 
writers  have  returned  to  the  date  which  tradition  had 
given.  Of  the  exact  identity  of  the  author  we 
shall  speak  later. 

We  now  turn  to  the  Gospel  and  Epistles. 

I.  The  Gospel  was  known  to  Ignatius  and 
read  by  him.  This  is,  I  believe,  proved  by  the 
knowledge  of  the  special  teaching  of  St.  John 
combined  with  a  passage,  the  literary  form  of  which 
implies  a  knowledge  of  the  written  Gospel.  It  has 
been  said  that  these  passages  arise  from  a  general 
acquaintance  with  the  oral  teaching  which  built  up  the 
Gospel.  But  let  us  remember,  Ignatius,  although 
he  wrote  in  Asia,  came  from  Antioch,  and  had  not 
been  brought  up  in  the  Christian  school  of  Ephesus. 
His  acquaintance  with  St.  John's  words  must  have 
been  in  writing,  and  the  comparatively  slight  use  made 
of  them  is  quite  consistent  with  the  later  date  of  this 
Gospel.  Nor  is  the  form  of  the  quotation  at  all 
consistent  with  mere  oral  knowledge. 

While  Ignatius  quotes  the  Gospel,  Polycarp  has  a 
passage  corresponding  to  the  language  of  the 
Epistles,  which  he  seems  to  quote  or  make  use  of  in 
just  the  same  way  as  he  does  the  Pauline  epistles. 

You  have  these  quotations  before  you.  They 
may  be  explained  away  as  every  historical  fact  and 
statement  from  ancient  times  can  be  explained  away. 


172    THE   DATES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT   BOOKS 

But  we  have  to  ask  ourselves  not,  How  can  1  get  over 
this  evidence  ?  but  what  is  the  most  rational  explana- 
tion of  these  facts  ? 

2.  A  very  definite  ecclesiastical  tradition  ascribes 
the  authorship  of  these  documents  to  St.  John,  who, 
it  is  asserted,  lived  to  the  age  of  about  100,  and  died 
at  Ephesus  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Trajan. 
"  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  who  lay  upon  his 
breast,  himself  gave  forth  the  Gospel,  when  he  was 
residing  at  Ephesus,  in  the  province  of  Asia."  So 
writes  Irenaeus  about  the  year  180.  The  value  of 
the  tradition  is  well  known.  Irenaeus  was  the  pupil 
of  Polycarp,  and  Polycarp  the  disciple  of  John. 
Irenaeus  claims  to  give  the  information  he  had  received 
directly  on  adequate  authority.  The  evidence  for 
this  tradition  may  be  summed  up  as  follows  :  we 
have 

(i.)  The  constant,  clear  testimony  of  Irenaeus. 

(ii.)  The  corroborative  evidence  of  Justin. 

(iii.)  The  testimony  of  Polycartes,  bishop  of 
Ephesus  in  the  year  196,  who  could  point  to  the 
reputed  tomb  of  John. 

(iv.)  The  testimony  of  the  Leucian  Acts  of  John. 
These  are  apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  of  which 
various  fragments  have  been  preserved.  Their  date 
is  about  170.  They  are  the  work  of  a  Gnostic 
heretic  of  Docetic,  probably  of  Valentinian  opinions. 
They  are  probably  some  of  the  most  foolish  books 


ST.    JOHN    IN    ASIA  I73 

ever  written.  But  that  does  not  concern  us.  The 
important  point  is  that  they  emanate  from  heretical 
sources,  but  that  the  writer  clearly  knows  and  makes 
use  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  and  that  they  assume  the 
activity  of  St.  John  in  Ephesus  as  axiomatic. 

(v.)  To  these  we  can  add  the  evidence  of  the 
Muratorian  fragment  on  the  Canon,  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria  and  later  fathers,  perhaps  coming  from  the 
sources  we  have  enumerated,  perhaps  independent. 

Now  here  we  have  a  strong  and  decided  body  of 
evidence.  What  is  to  be  said  against  it  ?  An 
obscure  passage  in  the  writings  of  a  certain  Papias  of 
Hierapolis,  who  lived  about  the  year  140,  has 
suggested  to  some  persons  that  there  were  two 
people  of  the  name  of  John  in  Asia  at  the  close  of  the 
first  century,  namely  John  the  Apostle  and  John  the 
Presbyter,  also  called  a  disciple  of  the  Lord.  Some 
of  the  early  Christian  fathers  who  were  by  no  means 
bad  critics  seized  upon  this  sug^gestion,  and  a  certain 
number  of  other  hints,  because  it  suggested  a  plaus- 
able  theory  for  the  authorship  of  the  Apocalypse. 
They  felt  the  difficulty  of  ascribing  that  work  to  the  same 
author  as  the  gospel,  that  is  to  the  Apostle  John,  and 
assigned  it  to  John  the  Presbyter ;  but  none  of  them 
had  any  doubt  about  the  gospel.  This  same  John  the 
Presbyter  has  been  seized  upon  with  alacrity  by 
modern  critics  and  widely  exploited.  Either  he  is  con- 
sidered to  have  been  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 


174    THE   DATES  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS 

while  the  Apocalypse  is  doubtfully  ascribed  to  the 
Apostle,  or  the  whole  legend  is  maintained  to  have 
arisen  from  this  confusion,  and  it  is  maintained  that 
just  as  Philip  the  Apostle  and  Philip  the  Evangelist 
were  confused  together,  so  John  the  Presbyter  and 
John  the  Apostle  were  confused.  The  Gospel  then 
was  written  by  John  the  Presbyter,  and  it  is  very 
doubtful  indeed  whether  John  the  Apostle  had 
anything  to  do  with  Asia  and  Ephesus. 

We  cannot,  I  am  afraid,  discuss  this  question  fully. 
Let  me  point  out  this  much,  however,  to  begin  with. 
This  theory  will  not  in  any  way  simplify  the  problem 
of  the  Gospel.  It  is  quite  clear  that  that  Gospel  pur- 
ports to  have  been  written  by  John  the  Apostle  either 
directly  or  indirectly.  If  it  was  not,  it  was  forged 
by  someone  who  wished  it  to  be  thought  that  it  was. 
If  John  the  Presbyter  was  (as  Professor  Harnack 
maintains)  the  author,  you  still  have  to  assume  that 
he  had  an  acquaintance  with  the  tradition  delivered 
by  John  the  Apostle,  and  really  then  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  have  a  John  the  Presbyter  at  all.  It  is  quite 
consistent  with  ecclesiastical  tradition  and  the  internal 
evidence  of  the  Gospel  that  it  should  have  been 
written  down  by  the  Christian  circle  which  sur- 
rounded the  Apostle.  Nothing  is  gained  as  far  as 
regards  the  Gospel  by  assuming  another  person  of 
the  name  of  John. 

Moreover  all   the   evidence   concerning  John  the 


JOHN    THE    PRESBYTER  175 

Presbyter  is  very  doubtful.  The  fact  of  his  existence 
depends  upon  an  obscure  and  possibly  corrupt  passage 
of  Papias,  as  interpreted  by  Eusebius,  who  had  an 
object  in  view.  Many  other  early  Christian  writers  had 
read  Papias  and  none  of  them  discovered  the  existence 
of  the  second  John.  All  those  who  had  read  him  believed 
that  he  testified  to  the  existence  of  John  the  Apostle 
in  Asia  Minor.  The  writers  who  believed  in  John 
the  Presbyter  had  no  doubt  that  Papias  testified  also 
to  John  the  Apostle,  and  although  we  cannot  rely 
altogether  on  the  accuracy  of  later  quotations  and 
references,  we  have  definite  statements  quoted  from 
Papias  to  the  effect  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  came 
from  John  the  Apostle,  but  was  written  down  at  his 
dictation  by  Papias  himself.^ 

What  I  would  put  before  you  is  that  a  wide  and 
early  tradition  ascribes  the  Gospel  directly  or  in- 
directly to  the  Apostle  John  and  gives  us  a  clear 
idea  of  all   the  circumstances   under    which    it   was 


^  These  are  found  in  a  preface  to  St.  John's  Gospel  contained 
in  the  Codex  Toletanus  (Wordsworth  and  White,  p.  490),  see 
Burkitt,  Two  Lectures  on  the  Gospels^  pp.  68-70,  90-94.  I  quote 
the  translation  given  by  Mr.  Burkitt  :  "  this  Gospel  therefore  it 
is  manifest  was  written  after  the  Apocalypse,  and  was  given  to 
the  churches  in  Asia  by  John  while  he  was  yet  in  the  body,  as 
one  Papias  by  name,  Bishop  of  Hierapolis,  a  disciple  of  John  and 
dear  to  him,  in  his  Exotcrica,  i.e.  in  the  end  of  the  Five  Books, 
related,  he  who  wrote  this  Gospel  at  John's  dictation  {lohanne 
subdictantey 


176    THE   DATES  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS 

written,  and  that  the  internal  evidence  harmonizes 
with  this.  These  facts  have  to  be  explained  away, 
and  the  explanations  given  are  neither  convincing  nor 
consistent. 

3.  I  can  only  mention  a  third  corroborative 
argument  of  early  date.  Exactly  the  same  marks 
of  early  phraseology  are  characteristic  of  St.  John*s 
Gospel  and  the  Synoptics.  If  you  wish  to  realize  the 
force  of  this  you  can  compare  the  narrative  in  this 
Gospel  with  a  recently  discovered  fragment  of  the 
Leucian  Acts  of  John  discovered  by  Dr.  James  of 
King's  College,  Cambridge.  The  letter  is  clearly  an 
apocryphal  document,  and  as  far  as  it  goes  affords 
an  admirable  contrast  to  the  simplicity,  the  early 
character,  the  religious  sanity,  and — if  I  may  venture 
to  say  so — the  inspired  language  of  the  First  Gospel. 

Let  me  sum  up.  There  are  quite  clear  indications 
of  the  use  of  the  Johannine  writings  about  the  year 
no.  The  traditions  of  the  Ephesian  evidences  of 
the  Apostle  are  strong  and  good.  External  and 
internal  evidence  both  alike  testify  to  the  Apostle 
John  being  the  author.  I  believe  then  that  the 
Gospel  and  Epistles  were  written  in  Asia  between  the 
years  80  and  100,  and  come  directly  or  indirectly 
from  John  the  Apostle,  the  Apocalypse  about  95  or 
96,  and  if  you  like  to  believe  that  John  the  Presbyter 
wrote  the  latter,  you  may. 

May  I  add  one  word  in  conclusion  ?     There  is  an 


THE    EPISTLE    OF    JAMES  1 77 

impression  in  many  quarters  that  the  writers  who 
are  called  apologists  are  continually  building  up 
elaborate  and  far-fetched  theories  to  explain  away 
what  is  obvious  and  natural,  and  that  the  simple  and 
natural  explanation  of  the  facts  is  that  of  the  newer 
critics.  Throughout  the  Johannine  question  the 
reverse  is  the  case.  The  simple  and  natural  ex- 
planation is  the  orthodox  one,  it  takes  the  facts 
simply  as  they  are.  It  has  far  the  most  evidence  in 
its  favour.  If  you  turn  to  the  articles  by  Schmiedel 
and  Abbott  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Biblica^  you  will  find 
long  and  elaborate  theories  constructed  to  explain 
away  simple  facts.  You  will  find  what  seem  obvious 
quotations  from  St.  John  ascribed  to  Philo  or  some 
other  writer  to  whose  words  they  have  only  a 
distant  resemblance.  You  will  find  every  explana- 
tion but  the  natural  one  given  of  various  passages. 
We  will  find  a  great  deal  that  is  clever  and  ingenious. 
But  it  is  all  of  the  nature  of  apologetics.  The  whole 
trend  of  investigation  and  discovery  has  been  against 
the  position  adopted  by  those  writers,  and  in  mxuch 
of  what  they  say  they  are  really  in  the  position  of  an 
old-fashioned  scholar  defending  the  Pauline  author- 
ship of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

V. 

The    last    group    consists    of  four    very    difficult 
books.     The  Epistle  of  James  has  often  been  con- 

M 


178    THE   DATES  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   BOOKS 

sidered  the  oldest  book  in  the  New  Testament.  A 
reaction  has  now  set  in  and  it  figures  very  often  as 
one  of  the  latest,  being  placed  about  the  year  150. 
If  it  could  be  proved  (as  has  been  asserted)  that  it 
was  quoted  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  the  early 
date  would  be  correct,  but  it  cannot  be  so  proved. 
There  are  no  certain  early  quotations.  There  are 
similarities  of  expression  to  Clement's  Epistle,  but 
nothing  that  proves  literary  obligation.  But  I  do  not 
believe  in  the  late  date,  and  that  for  two  reasons. 

(t)  The  Epistle  undoubtedly  refers  to  a  contro- 
versy about  Faith  and  Works.  We  know  that  that 
controversy  existed  at  a  certain  period  in  the  first 
century  ;  we  have  to  invent  it  in  the  second.  St. 
Paul's  Epistles  make  it  abundantly  clear  that  there 
were  within  the  Christian  community  many  who 
did  not  accept  his  theory  of  Justification  by  Faith, 
and  held  that,  like  Abraham,  Christians  were  justified 
by  Works.  This  situation  just  suits  the  Epistle  of 
James.  But  if  we  place  it  in  the  second  century 
there  is  no  natural  place  for  it.  "  Perhaps,"  it  is 
said,  "  in  his  polemic  against  faith  the  writer  had 
in  mind  an  ultra-Pauline  gnosis,  which  he  may  or  may 
not  have  disconnected  from  genuine  Paulinism." 
But  this  is  a  situation  of  the  existence  of  which  we 
have  no  evidence,  and  which  was  certainly  not  natural 
at  that  time,  for  the  Gnostic  despised  faith  and 
exalted  knowledge. 


THE    FIRST    EPISTLE    OF    PETER  1 79 

(2)  Although  Clement  of  Rome  cannot  be  proved 
to  have  quoted  the  Epistle,  it  is  quite  clear  that  he 
was  acquainted  with  and  was  indebted  to  the  type 
of  Christianity  that  it  represents.  Without  really 
understanding  the  controversy,  he  attempted  to  har- 
monize, or  at  any  rate  unite,  those  who  held  justifica- 
tion by  Faith  and  those  who  held  justification  by 
Works.  We  must  suppose  he  had  some  other 
document  of  similar  content  if  he  had  not  the 
Epistle  of  James  before  him. 

(3)  The  ecclesiastical  situation  and  language  do 
not  exhibit  anything  which  must  be  late,  and  have 
some  features  v/hich  must  be  early. 

The  natural  date  for  it  is  the  time  of  the  Pauline 
controversy,  the  natural  place  Jerusalem,  the  natural 
author  the  writer  by  whom  it  claims  to  have  been 
written.  By  whom  and  at  what  time  it  was  trans- 
lated, to  what  agency  it  owes  its  gnomic  and  impres- 
sive language,  what  has  been  its  history  we  do  not 
know.  A  forger  generally  has  a  purpose,  but  the 
Epistle  of  James  became  an  anachronism  long  before 
any  date  when  it  could  have  been  forged. 

The  First  Epistle  of  Peter  is  one  of  the  best 
attested  books  of  the  New  Testament.  Although 
the  Apostolic  Fathers  never  quote  it  under  any 
name,  it  was  as  well  known  to  them  as  were  the 
Pauline  Epistles.  It  contains  no  evidence  of  later 
date.     Its  theological  language  is  simple  and  early. 


l8o    THE  DATES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS 

On  the  one  hand,  it  must  have  been  written  after  the 
Romans  and  Ephesians,  to  which  it  is  indebted  ;  on 
the  other  hand,  it  must  have  been  earlier  than  the 
time  of  Clement.  It  was  written  from  Rome,  it 
claims  to  have  been  by  Peter,  and  there  is  nothing 
in  the  contents  to  compel  us  to  put  it  later  than  the 
year  464  a.d.,  although  we  cannot  perhaps  prove 
that  it  was  earlier  than  80-90. 

The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  and  the  Epistle  of 
Jude  are  the  most  doubtful  writings  in  the  New 
Testament.  There  is  no  external  testimony  to  com- 
pel us  to  put  them  before  150  a.d.,  but  that  does  not 
of  course  necessarily  compel  us  to  put  them  so  late. 
It  may  well  be  that  such  short  and  unimportant  books 
might  miss  being  quoted  in  the  few  writings  we 
possess.  Their  relationship  to  one  another  is  unde- 
termined. There  are  many  passages  in  both  which 
make  their  genuineness  seem  doubtful.  There  is 
such  a  marked  difference  of  style  between  the  two 
Epistles  of  St.  Peter  that  we  can  only  suppose  both 
to  be  genuine  by  assuming  a  different  translator. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing  in  them  which 
need  be  later  than  the  first  century.  I  cannot  claim 
to  have  studied  them  sufficiently  to  give  a  more 
definite  opinion  of  my  own. 

The  object  which  we  set  before  ourselves  at  the 
beginning    of  this    lecture    was    not    to    attempt    a 


FUTURE    CONTROVERSY  l8l 

detailed  dating  of  the  separate  books,  but  to  keep 
steadily  in  view  the  main  question,  whether  the 
traditional  view  according  to  which  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  were  written  in  the  first  century  was 
correct.  Our  aim  will  have  been  satisfied,  if  I  have 
succeeded  in  making  it  clear  that  those  who  hold 
this  traditional  view  have  a  very  strong  case  indeed, 
a  case  which  on  all  points,  except  one  or  two,  has 
steadily  grown  stronger  with  the  advance  of  know- 
ledge. It  is  significant  that  Professor  Harnack,  whose 
views  of  Christianity  are  certainly  not  orthodox,  has 
recognized  this  ;  it  is  significant  again  that  Professor 
Gardner  considers  that  there  is  no  reason  why  all 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  should  not  have 
been  written  before  the  close  of  the  first  century. 
These  opinions  are  not  indeed  universal,  but  the  late 
dates  still  accepted  by  some  critics  are,  I  believe, 
an  anachronism.  The  careful  investigation  and 
accurate  dating  of  the  documents  of  the  second 
century,  and  especially  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  have 
made  writings,  like  those  of  Professor  Schmiedel  and 
Dr.  xlbbott,  as  much  behind  the  times  as  the  Greek 
Testament  of  Bishop  Christopher  Wordsworth. 

Do  not  imagine  for  a  moment  that  I  should  claim 
that  the  controversy  was  over.  The  credibility  and 
historical  character  of  the  New  Testament  writings 
still  demands  much  investigation.  But  for  the  future 
the  living  defence  of  traditional  Christianity  and  the 


I  82    THE   DATES  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   BOOKS 

living  attack — the  defence  such  as  that  of  Dr.  Sanday 
and  Dr.  Strong,  the  attack  such  as  that  of  Professor 
Harnack  and  Professor  Gardiner — will  accept  sub- 
stantially the  same  dates.  At  the  threshold  of  the 
future  questions  :  How  far  are  the  New  Testament 
books  credible  ?  What  ultimate  answer  can  we  give 
when  asked,  What  think  ye  of  Christ;  whose  son  is 
He  ?  my  task  ends ;  only  to  any  who  would  ask  for 
some  provisional  answer  I  would  say  ;  The  dates  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  the  first  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  are  within  a  year  or  two  absolutely  certain. 
Their  genuineness  may  be  considered  undisputed. 
Read  them,  and  grasp  their  meaning  and  all  that 
they  imply.  Then  compare  them  with  the  Old 
Testament,  and  with  the  contemporary  Jewish  litera- 
ture, and  with  classical  literature,  if  you  do  so  you  will 
realize  what  a  tremendous  interval  separates  them  from 
anything  which  had  appeared  in  the  world  before. 
Try  and  conceive  what  cause  could  have  been  suffici- 
ent within  a  very  few  years  to  create  such  a  wonderful 
new  world  of  thought  and  ideas  and  institutions,  of 
moral  motive  and  religious  aspirations.  Then  you 
will  begin  to  understand  the  problem  of  early 
Christianity,  and  perhaps,  if  one  comprehends  the 
problem,  the  solution  necessarily  follows. 


APPENDIX.i 

QUOTATIONS  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  IN  THE 
WRITINGS  OF  THE   APOSTOLIC  FATHERS. 

The  following  quotations  are  all  taken  from  writings 
which  represent  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  cen- 
tury or  an  earlier  period.     These  are  : 

(i)   '^he    Epistle  of  Clement    to    the    Corinthian 
Church  (Clem.).     (About  95  a.d.) 

(2)  T^he  DiDACHE  (Did.)  or  'Teaching  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles,  a  composite  document.     (80-1 10  a.d.) 

(3)  T/^(?£/)ij//^q/'BARNABAS  (Barn.).  (70-120  a.d.) 

(4)  The  Epistle  of  Ic^NATius^lgn.).  (About  1 10  a.d.) 

(5)  TheEpistle of  FoLYCARP (Po\.).  (About  i  ioa.d.) 

The  extracts  are  grouped  as  follows  : 
I.  General  Statements. 
II.  The  Pauline  Epistles. 

III.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

IV.  The  Acts  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
V.  The  Johannine  Writings. 

VI.  The  Remaining  Books. 

1  The  courtesy  of  the  Lightfoot  Trustees  in  permitting  the  use 

of  Bishop    Lightfoot's    Translation    of  the   Apostolic    Fathers    is 

gratefully  acknowledged. 

H.  H.  H. 


184  APPENDIX 

I.   General  Statements. 

To  the  writers  of  this  period,  as  to  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament,  the  Scriptures  are  naturally  the 
Old  Testament.  The  words  of  our  Lord  are  quoted 
with  such  formulas  as  '  remembering  the  words  of  the 
Lord  Jesus'  (Clem.  13,  46),  'remembering  the  words 
which  the  Lord  spake,  as  he  taught'  (Pol.  2)  ; 
'according  as  the  Lord  said'  (Pol.  7).  Occasionally 
there  are  references  directly  to  an  Epistle  of  St.  Paul, 
but  generally  the  quotations  from  the  Epistles,  which 
are  by  far  the  most  numerous,  are  made  without 
acknowledgment.  In  certain  passages,  however,  there 
are  approximations  to  later  uses. 

(i)  Pol.  12.  'For  I  am  persuaded  that  ye  are  well  trained  in 
the  sacred  writings,  and  nothing  is  hidden  from  you.  But  to 
myself  this  is  not  granted.  Only,  as  it  is  said  in  these  Scriptures, 
Be  ye  angry  and  sin  not,  and  Let  not  the  sun  set  on  your  wrath. ' 

The  first  quotation  comes  from  Ps.  iv.  4,  and  is  quoted  in  Eph. 
iv.  26;  the  second  comes  from  Eph.  iv.  26.  The  Old  Testament 
quotation  may  have  made  it  easier  to  speak  of  St.  Paul's  writings 
as  scripture,  but  this  early  instance  of  later  phraseology  is  quite 
consistent  with  Polycarp's  whole  attitude  to  the  New  Testament. 
He  uses  the  writings  as  if  they  were  his  Bible. 

(2)  Ign.  PhiL  5,  'taking  refuge  in  the  Gospel  as  the  flesh  of 
Jesus,  and  in  the  Apostles  as  the  presbytery  of  the  Church.  Yea, 
and  we  love  the  Prophets  also,  because  they  too  pointed  to  the 
Gospel.' 

There  is  clearly  a  reference  to  writings,  and  to  authoritative 
writings  of  Apostles  as  corresponding  to  the  Prophets;  but  it  is 
very  doubtful  if  the  word  Gospel  can  be  proved  here  to  mean 
a  *  book,'  it  probably  still  means  '  the  message.'  So  Smyrn.  7. 
'  It  is  therefore  meet  that  ye  should  abstain  from  such,  and  not 


PAULINE     EPISTLES  I  85 

speak  of  them  either  privately  or  in  public  ;  but  should  give  heed 
to  the  Prophets,  and  especially  to  the  Gospel^  wherein  the  passion 
is  shown  unto  us  and  the  resurrection  is  accomplished.'  Cf.  also 
Phil.  9. 

(3)  Barn.  4.  Let  us  give  heed,  lest  haply  we  be  found,  as  the 
Scripture  saith.  Many  called  but  fezv  chosen. 

Here  we  have  Matth.  xxii.  14.  quoted  with  the  ordinary  formula 
for  the  citation  of  Scripture.  It  is  possible  to  press  it  too  far, 
but  that  the  point  is  significant  is  shown  by  the  bold  effort  made 
to  explain  it  away.  See,  for  example,  Dr.  Abbott  in  Encyclopaedia 
Biblica  IL,  1828,  who  thinks  that  perhaps  it  is  a  quotation  from 
Enoch ;  but  as  the  passage  does  not  occur  in  Enoch  as  we  know 
it,  he  has  to  suppose  another  recension.  This  represents  a  most 
elaborate   and   far-fetched  method  of  apology. 

(4.)  Did.  8.  Neither  pray  ye  as  the  hypocrites,  but  as  the  Lord 
commanded  in  His  Gospel,  thus  pray  ye :  Our  Father,  etc. 

lb.  15.  And  reprove  one  another,  not  in  anger  but  in  peace^ 
as  ye  find  in  the  Gospel.  .  .  .  But  your  prayers  and  your  alms- 
giving and  all  your  deeds,  so  do  ye  as  you  find  it  in  the  Gospel  of 
our  Lord. 

In  both  these  passages  the  word  Gospel  has  come  very  near  to 
meaning  a  written  Gospel. 

II.  The  Pauline  Epistles. 

(i)  Romans.  There  is  no  reference  to  this  Epistle 
by  name,  yet  the  following  passage  in  Ignatius'  letter 
to  the  Roman  Church  may  have  been  suggested  by  it: 
'I  do  not  enjoin  you  as  Peter  and  Paul  did.  They 
were  Apostles,  I  am  a  convict ;  they  were  free,  but  I 
am  a  slave  to  this  very  hour'  (Ign.  Rom.  4).  But 
the  quotations  in  Clement  of  Rome  are  numerous,  as 
also  in  Polycarp.  The  resemblances  of  language  in 
Ignatius,  which,  as  is  so  often  the  case,  do  not  rise  to 
the  dignity  of  a  quotation,  are  perhaps  even  more 


i86 


APPENDIX 


significant.  There  are  also  quotations  or  reminis- 
cences in  the  Didache  and  in  Barnabas.  The  fol- 
lowing two  instances  will  suffice  for  our  purpose. 

I  Clem.  35,  Casting  off  from  Rom.  i    29-32.      Being  filled 

ourselves  all  unrighteousness  and  with  all  unrighteousness ^  fornica- 

iniquity,       covetousness,      strifes,  tion,     wickedness,     covetousness, 

malignities   and   deceits,  whisper-  maliciousness ;     full     of    envy, 

ings   and    backbitings,    hatred   of  murder,    debate,    deceit,    malig- 

God,  pride  and  arrogance,  vain-  7iity  ;  zvhisperers,  backbiters,  haters 


glory  and  inhospitality.  For 
they  that  do  these  things  are  hate- 
ful to  God  ;  and  not  only  they 
that  do  them,  but  they  also  that 
consent  unto  them. 


Pol.  6.  For  we  are  before 
the  eyes  of  our  Lord  and  God, 
and  we  must  all  stand  at  the 
judgment- Seat  of  Christ,  and 
each  man  must  give  an  account  of 
himself. 


of  God,  despiteful,  proud,  boasters, 
inventors  of  evil  things,  dis- 
obedient to  parents,  without 
understanding,  covenant-break- 
ers, without  natural  affection, 
implacable  ;  unmerciful ;  who 
knowing  the  judgment  of  God, 
that  they  which  commit  such 
things  are  worthy  of  death,  not 
only  do  the  same,  but  have  pleasure 
in  them  that  do  them. 

Rom.  xiv.  10.  For  we  shall 
all  stand  before  the  Judgment- 
Seat  of  God  .  .  (cf  2  Cor.  V.  10.) 

12.  So  then  each  one  of  us 
shall  give  account  of  himself  to 
God. 


We  notice  that  the  second  passage  is  quoted  without  the  words 
Tw  ^€(^  which  are  omitted  by  B  and  some  other  authorities. 

For  further  instances  see  Sanday  and  Headlam,  Romans,  p.  Ixxx. 

(2)  I  Corinthians.  This  Epistle  is  definitely  re- 
ferred to  by  name  in  the  Letter  of  Clement  to  the 
Corinthians,  written  40  years  later. 

I .  Clem.  47.  *  Take  up  the  epistle  of  the  blessed  Paul  the  Apostle. 
What  wrote  he  first  unto  you  in  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  ? 


I    CORINTHIANS 


187 


Of  a  truth  he  charged  you  in  the  spirit  concerning  himself  and 
Cephas  and  Apollos,  because  that  even  then  ye  had  made  parties,' 

Reminiscences  of  the  Epistle  are  numerous.  Such  are  found  in 
Clement,  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  and  in  the  Didache.  The  following 
instances  will  probably  suffice. 


Ign.  Eph.  I.  My  spirit  is 
made  an  offscouring  for  the 
Cross,  which  is  a  stumbling-block 
to  them  that  are  unbelievers,  but 
to  us  salvation  and  life  eternal. 
Where  is  the  wise  ?  Where  is  the 
disputer?  Where  is  the  boasting 
of  them  that  are  c^WqiI prudent  ? 


I  Clem.  34.  For  he  saith, 
Eye  hath  not  seen  and  ear  hath 
not  heard,  and  it  hath  not  entered 
into  the  heart  of  man  what  great 
things  He  hath  prepared  for  them 


I  Cor.  i.  18-20.  For  the 
preaching  of  the  cross  is  to 
them  that  perish  foolishness ; 
but  unto  us  which  are  saved  it 
is  the  power  of  God. 

19.  For  it  is  written,  I  will 
destroy  the  wisdom  of  the  wise, 
and  will  bring  to  nothing  the 
understanding  of  the  prudent. 

20.  Where  is  the  zvise  ?  Where 
is  the  scribe  ?  Where  is  the  dis- 
puter of  this  world  ?     Hath  not 

God  made  foolish  the  wisdom 
of  this  world  ? 

I  Cor.  ii.  9.  But  as  it  is 
written,  Eye  hath  not  seen,  nor 
ear  heard,  neither  have  entered 
into  the  heart  of  man,  the  things 
which  God  hath  prepared  for 
them  that  love  him. 


that  patiently  await  Him. 

St  Paul  quotes  freely  Is.  xliv.  4.  ^  Clement  mixes  up  St  Paul's 
free  translation  or  paraphrase  from  the  Hebrew  with  the  passage 
as  it  stands  in  the  LXX.'     Ltf. 


Pol.  II.  If  a  man  refrain 
not  from  covetousness,  he  shall 
be  defiled  by  idolatry,  and  shall 
be  judged  as  one  of  the  Gen- 
tiles who  know  not  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Lord.  l>^ay,  know 
we  net,  that  the  saints  shall  judge 
the  world,  as  Paul  teacheth  ? 


I  Cor.  vi.  2.  Do  ye  not  know 
that  the  saints  shall  judge  the 
world  ? 


i88 


APPENDIX 


Here  again  we   have    i    Cor.  definitely  cited  as  being  by  St. 
Paul. 

Pol.   5.     And  neither  whore-  i  C4or.  vi.  9,  10.     Be  not  de- 

mongers  nor  effeminate  persons,  ceived  :  neither  fornicators^  nor 
nor  dejilers  of  themselves  with  idolaters,  nor  adulterers,  nor 
men,  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  effeminate,  nor  abusers  of  them- 
God,  neither  they  that  do  un-  selves  with  men,  nor  thieves,  nor 
toward  things.  covetous,    nor    drunkards,    nor 

revilers,    nor   extortioners,  shall 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God. 
In  Pol.  5  there  is  a  reminiscence  of  i  Cor.  xiv.  25,  and  in  Pol. 
10  from  I   Cor.  xv.  58. 

(3)   2   Corinthians.     Quotations    from  the  Second 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  are  much  less  numerous. 

Pol.    II.       But    I    have  not  2    Cor.   iii.   2.     Ye  are    our 

found  any  such   thing   in  you,      epistle,   written    in    our    hearts, 
neither    have     heard     thereof,      known  and  read  of  all  men. 
among  whom   the  blessed  Paul 
laboured,  who  were  his  epistles  in 
the  beginning. 

Although   the   quotation    Is  slight,   it   is    too   significant  to  be 
doubtful. 

Pol.  2.     Now  He  that  raised  2    Cor.    iv.     14.       Knowing 

Him  from  the  dead  zcill  raise  that  he  which  raised  up  the 
us  also.  Lord  Jesus  shall  raise  up  us  also 

with  Jesus. 

In  Pol.  6  there  is  a  reminiscence  of  2  Cor.  viii.  26. 


(4)   Galatians. 

Pol.  5.  Knowing  then  that 
God  is  not  mocked,  we  ought  to 
walk  worthily  of  His  command- 
ment and  His  glory. 


Gal.  vi.  7.  Be  not  deceived ; 
God  is  not  mocked  :  for  whatso- 
ever a  man  soweth,  that  shall 
he  also  reap. 


In  Pol.  12,  Gal  i.  I  is  quoted  ;   in  Pol.  3,  Gal.  iv.  26. 


EPHESIANS 


189 


(5)   Kphesians. 

Ign.  Eph.  12.  Ye  are  associates  in  the  mysteries 
with  Paul,  who  was  sanctified,  who  obtained  a  good 
report,  who  is  worthy  of  all  felicitation  ;  in  whose 
footsteps  I  would  fain  be  found  treading,  when  I 
shall  attain  unto  God  ;  who  in  every  letter  maketh 
mention  of  you  in  Christ  Jesus. 

This  ought  perhaps  rather  to  be  quoted  as  a  reference  to  a 
general  collection  of  Pauline  letters.  St.  Paul  refers  to  the 
Ephesians  in  six  of  his  Epistles.  Quotations  from  this  Epistle  are 
numerous. 


Pol.  I.  Forasmuch  as  ye  know 
that  it  is  b'j  grace  ye  are  saved, 
not  by  works,  but  by  the  will 
of  God  through  Christ  Jesus. 

I  Clem.  46.  Have  we  not 
one  God  and  one  Christ  and  one 
Spirit  of  grace  that  was  shed 
upon  us  ?  And  is  there  not 
one  calling  in  Christ  ? 


Pol.    10.     Be  ye   all  subject 
one  to  another. 

There  is  also  a  reminiscence 
the  quotation  o^  Eph.  iv.  26,  see 


Eph.  ii.  8,  9.  For  by  grace  are 
ye  saved  through  faith  ;  and 
that  not  of  yourselves :  it  is  the 
gift  of  God  :  not  of  works,  lest 
any  man  should  boast. 

Eph.  iv.  4.  There  is  one 
body,  and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye 
are  called  in  one  hope  of  your 
calling;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of 
all,  who  is  above  all,  and 
through  all,  and  in  you  all. 
But  unto  every  one  of  us  is 
given  grace  according  to  the 
measure  of  the  gift  of  Christ. 

Eph.  v.  21.  Subjecting  your- 
selves one  to  another  in  the  fear 
of  Christ. 

q{  Eph.  vi.   18   in  Pol.    12.     For 
above,  p.  184 


Ign.  Pol.  5.     In  like  manner  Eph.  v.  25.    Husbands,  love 

also  charge  my  brothers  in  the      your  wives,  even  as  Christ  also 


190  APPENDIX 

name  of  Jesus  Christ    to    love      loved  the  church  and  gave  himself 

their    wives,    as    the    Lord   the      for  it.   .   .   . 

Church.  29.      .    .    .    but     nourisheth 

and    cherisheth    it,   even   as  the 

Lord  the  church. 

(6)  Philippians.  A  letter  or  letters  of  St.  Paul  to 
the  Philippians  is  referred  to  in  the  following  passage 
from  Polycarp.  Pol.  3  :  '  For  neither  am  1,  nor  is  any 
other  like  unto  me,  able  to  follow  the  wisdom  of  the 
blessed  and  glorious  Paul,  who  when  he  came  among 
you  taught  face  to  face  with  the  men  of  that  day  the 
word  which  concerneth  truth  carefully  and  surely  ; 
who  also  when  he  was  absent  wrote  letters  unto  you, 
into  the  which  if  you  look  diligently,  ye  shall  be  able 
to  be  builded  up  unto  the  faith  given  to  you.' 

The  plural  may 
either  (i)   be  the  Epistolary  plural,  meaning  only  one  letter, 
or         (2)  include  letters  to  the  Thessalonians. 
or         (3)  include  other  letters  to  the  Philippians  not  now  preserved. 

Quotations  from  the  epistle  are  neither  numerous  nor  important. 

Pol.  9.   Being  persuaded  that  Phil.  ii.   16.     That  I  did  not 

all  these  ran  not  in  vain  but  in      I'un   in   vain,   neither  labour  in 
faith  and  righteousness.  vain. 

The  words  are  exactly  the  same  in  both  passages.     There  is  a 
reminiscence  oi' Phil.  iii.  18  in  Pol.  12. 

(7)  Colossians. 

Quotations  or  reminiscences  of  the  Colossians  are 
also  very  uncommon  ;  the  following  is  definite  as  far 
as  it  goes. 

Ign.  Eph.  10.     Against  their  Col.  i.  23.      If  so  be  that  ye 

errorshe.  yo,  sfedfast  in  the  faith.         continue    in   the  faith  grounded 

and  stedfast. 


THE    PASTORAL    EPISTLES 


191 


(8)    I  and  2  Thessalonians. 

Here  again  the  quotations  are  slight. 


Ign.  Eph.  10.  And  pra'^ 
also  zvithout  ceashig  for  the  rest 
of  mankind. 

Pol.   1 1 .     For  he  boasteth  of 
you  in  all  those  churches  which 
alone  at  that  time  knew  God. 


I  Thess.  V.  17. 
ceasing. 


Pray  without 


2  Thess.  i.  4.  So  that  we 
ourselves  boast  of  you  in  the 
churches  of  God. 

The  allusion  is  to  Phil.  i.  3,  4,  iv.  10,  18,  but  the  language  is 
taken  from  2  Thess.  Immediately  before  he  has  written  of  the 
Philippians  as  ''the  letters"  of  St.  Paul  from  the  beginning,  taking 
his  language  from  2  Cor.  iii.  2  (see  page  188). 

Pol.    II.       Be    ye    therefore  2    Thess.    iii.    15.      And    yet 

yourselves    also    sober    herein,      count  him  not  as  an  enemy^  but 
and  hold  not  such  as  enemies,  but      admonish  him  as  a  brother, 
restore  them  as  frail  and  erring 
members. 

(9)  l^he  Pastoral  Epistles. 

I  Clem.  7.  And  let  us  see 
what  is  ^W,  and  what  is  pleasant 
and  what  is  acceptable  in  the 
sight  (9/'Him  that  made  us. 

Pol.  4.  But  the  love  of  money 
is  the  beginning  of  all  troubles. 
Knowing  therefore  that  zve 
brought  nothing  into  the  zvorld 
neither  can  we  carry  anything  out. 

In  Pol.  1 2  there  is  a  reference 
iv.  15. 


I  Tim.  ii.  3.  For  this  is 
good  and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of 
God  our  Saviour. 

I  Tim.  vi.  10.  For  the  love 
of  money  is  the  root  o{  all  evil. 

I  Tim.  vi.  7.  For  we  brought 
nothing  into  the  world,  for  neither 
can  we  carry  anything  out. 

to   I    Tim.  ii.  i   and  to  i    Tim. 


Pol.  5.     If  we  conduct  our-  2  Tim.  ii.  12.      If  we  endure 

selves    worthily    of    Him,    we  we  shall  also  rei^  with  him  :  if 

shall    also    reign    with    Him,    if  we  shall  deny  him,  he  also  will 

indeed  we  have  faith.  deny  us. 


192 


APPENDIX 


Pol.  9.  For  they  loved  not 
the  present  worlds  but  Him  that 
died  for  our  sakes  and  was 
raised  by  God  for  us. 

I  Clem.  2.  Ye  repented  not 
of  any  well-doing,  but  were 
ready  unto  every  good  work. 


2  Tim.  iv.  10.  For  Demas 
forsook  me,  having  loved  this 
present  zvorld. 

Tit.  iii.  I.  Put  them  in 
mind  ...   to  be  ready  to  every 

good  work. 


The  above  instances  show  that  reminiscences  of  or  coincidences 
with  the  Pastoral  Epistles  are  numerous,  in  Ignatius  particularly 
there  are  constant  parallels  in  thought  as  in  expression,  but  they 
are  not  of  a  sufficiently  definite  character  to  be  called  quotations. 

There  are  no  resemblances  to  Philemon  worth  mentioning. 

III.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  must  have  been  well 
known  to  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  of  Clement. 
There  are  over  twenty  places  in  which  there  are 
resemblances  of  language,  and  several  where  the 
resemblances  become  quotations.  The  work  is  never 
mentioned  by  name.  Elsewhere  there  is  a  clear 
resemblance  of  language  in  the  Didache,  and  both 
Ignatius  and  Polycarp  use  the  title  High  Priest 
of  our  Lord,  a  title  only  found  in  the  Hebrews. 
The  following  instances  from  Clement  will,  however, 
be  seen  to  be  conclusive. 


I  Clem.  36.  2,  3,  4,  5.  Who 
being  the  effulgence  of  His 
Majesty  is  so  much  greater  than 
angels,  as  He  hath  inherited  a  more 
excellent  name.  For  so  it  is 
written  :  who  maketh  His  angels 
spirits  and  His  Ministers  aflame  of 
fire:  but  of  His  Son  the  Master 


Heb.  i.  3-5.  M^ho  being  the 
effulgence  of  his  glory,  and  the 
very  image  of  his  substance,  and 
upholding  all  things  by  the 
word  of  his  power,  when  he  had 
made  purification  of  sins,  sat 
down  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
Majesty  on  high,  having  become 


EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS 


193 


said  thus:  Thou  art  My  Son 
this  day  have  I  begotten  Thee.  Ask 
of  Me,  and  I  will  give  Thee 
the  Gentiles  for  Thine  inherit- 
ance, and  the  ends  of  the  earth 
for  Thy  possession.  And  again 
He  saith  unto  Him  :  Sit  Thou 
on  My  right  hand,  until  I  make 
Thine  enemies  a  footstool  for  Thy 
feet. 


I  Clem.  17.  Let  us  be  imi- 
tators of  them  which  went 
about  in  goatskins  and  sheepskins, 
preaching  the  coming  of  Christ. 
We  mean  Elijah  and  Elisha  and 
likewise  Ezekiel,  the  prophets, 
and  besides  them  those  men  that 
obtained  a  good  report.  Abraham 
obtained  an  exceeding  good  re- 
port and  was  called  the  friend 
of  God ;  and  looking  stead- 
fastly on  the  glory  of  God,  he 
saith  in  lowliness  of  mind,  But 
I  am  dust  and  ashes. 

I  Clem.  9.  Let  us  set  before 
us  Enoch,  who  being  found 
righteous  in  obedience  was 
translated^  and  his  death  was  not 
found.  Noah,  being  iowwdi  faith- 


so  much  better  than  the  angels,  as 
he  hath  inherited  a  more  excellent 
name  than  they.  For  unto  which 
of  the  angels  said  he  at  any 
time.  Thou  art  my  Son.  This 
day  have   1   begotten   thee.  .   .  . 

7.  And  of  the  angels  he 
saith,  Who  maketh  his  angels  winds, 
and  his  ministers  a  flame  of  fire  : 
but  of  the  Son  he  saith.  Thy 
throne  O  God  is  for  ever  and 
ever,  etc.    .  .  . 

13.   But    of    which    of    the 
angels  hath  he  said  at  any  time  : 
Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand  till  I 
make  thine  enemies  the  footstool  of 
thy  feet. 

Heb,  xi.  37.  They  wandered 
about  in  sheepskins,  in  goatskins. 

39.  And  these  all  having  ob- 
tained a  good  report  through  faith. 

Cf  2,  4,  5. 

The  thought  also  of  v.  10, 
16  has  suggested  the  idea  of 
Abraham  looking  steadfastly  to 
the  glory  of  God. 


Heb.  xi.  5.  By  faith  Enoch 
was  translated  that  he  should 
not  see  death  ;  and  was  not 
found  because  God  had  trans- 
lated him  ;  for  before  his  trans- 


194 


APPENDIX 


ful,  by  his  ministration  preached 
regeneration  unto  the  world, 
and  through  him  the  Master 
saved  the  living  creatures  that 
entered  into  the  ark  in  concord. 


lation    he    had    this  testimony, 
that  he  pleased  God.  .   .   . 

7 .  By  faith,  Noah  being  warned 
of  God  of  things  not  seen  as 
yet,  moved  with  fear,  prepared 
an  ark  to  the  saving  of  his 
house  ;  by  the  which  he  con- 
demned the  world,  and  became 
heir  of  the  righteousness,  which 
is  by  faith. 

See    also    the    instances   of  Abraham,    i    Clem.    lo,   of  Rahab, 
I  Clem.  12. 


Did.  4.  My  child,  thou 
shalt  remember  him  that  speaketh 
unto  thee,  the  zuord  of  God  night 
and  day,  and  shalt  honour  him 
as  the  Lord. 


Heb.  xiii.  7,    Remember  them 
which  have  the  rule  over  you, 
which  spake  unto  you  the  word  of 
God 


IV.  The  Acts  and  Synoptic  Gospels. 

(i)   The    Acts.      Quotations    from    the   Acts    are 

slight,  but  not  altogether  unimportant. 

Ign.    Mgn.    5.       Each    man  Acts    i.     25.      From    which 

shall  go  to  his  own  place.  Judas  fell  away  that  he  might 

go  to  his  own  place. 

The  phrase  is  exactly  the  same  in  both,  but  it  might  of  course 
be  a  proverbial  expression,  used  independently  by  both  writers. 


Pol.  I.  Our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  endured  to  face 
even  death  for  our  sins,  zchom 
God  raised,  having  loosed  the  pangs 
of  Hades. 

The  quotation  is  almost  exact,  the  word  ^)y€Lp€v  (raised)  being 
substituted  for  uveaTtjcrev  (raised  up),  and  Hades  for  death,  a 
reminiscence  of  v.  27. 


Acts  ii.  24.  Whom  God  raised 
up,  having  loosed  the  pangs  of  death. 

27.  Because  thou  wilt  not 
leave  my  soul  in  Hades. 


THE    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES 


195 


Did.     4.      Thou    shalt    not  Acts  iv.  32.     And  not  one  of 

turn  away  from  him  that  is  in      them   said    that    ought   of  the 
want,     but     shalt     make     thy      things  which  he   possessed  was 
brother  partaker  in  all   things,      his  own. 
and  shalt  not  say  that  anything 
is  thine  own. 

Barn.  19,  8.  Thou  shalt 
make  thy  neighbour  partaker 
in  all  things,  and  shalt  not  say 
that  anything  is  thine  own. 

This    quotation   (if  such    it    be)    presumably   comes  from   the 
common  document  that  underlies  the  Didache  and  Barnabas. 


Ign.  Smyrn.  3.  Jnd  after 
His  resurrection  He  ate  with  them 
and  drank  with  them  as  one  in 
the  flesh,  though  spiritually  He 
was  united  with  the  Father. 


Acts  X.  4.1,  To  us  who  did 
eat  and  drink  with  him  after  he 
rose  from  the  dead. 


The  Greek  words  are  the  same  in  both  passages,  only  the  person 
is  changed. 


Pol.     2.      Who    Cometh 
judge  of  quick  and  dead. 


as  Acts    X.    42.       This    is    he 

which  was  ordained  of  God 
to  be  the  judge  of  quick  and 
dead. 


It  is  obvious  that  not  much  stress  can  be  laid  on  this  ;  the 
phrase  yW^^  of  quick  and  dead  must  have  been  a  common  Christian 
formula  very  early,     (cf  2  Tim.  iv.  i.) 


I  Clem.  2.  More  glad  to  ^ve 
than  to  receive. 

I  Clem.  13.  Most  of  all 
remembering  the  words  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  which  He  spake. 


Acts  XX.  35.  And  to  remem- 
ber the  tvords  of  the  Lord  Jesus^ 
how  he  said,  It  is  more  blessed 
to  give  than  to  receive. 


Here  again  we  may  have  an  independent  knowledge  of  the 
words  of  our  Lord,  yet  the  separate  quotations  of  the  two  different 
parts  of  the  passage  in  the  Acts  suggests  a  literary  obligation. 


196 


APPENDIX 


(2)  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  It  will  be  convenient 
first  of  all  to  group  together  a  number  of  passages 
which  have  been  held  to  show  a  knowledge  of 
the  contents  of  the  Gospel  and  not  any  special 
Gospel. 


Pol.  12.  Pray  for  all  the 
saints.  Pray  also  for  k'mgs  and 
powers  and  princes,  and  for 
them  that  persecute  and  hate  you, 
and  for  the  enemies  of  the 
cross,  that  your  fruit  might  he 
manifest  among  all  men,  that 
ye  may  h^  perfect  in  Him. 


Matt.  V.  44.  Pray  for  them. 
that  persecute  you,  that  ye  may 
be  the  sons  of  your  Father 
which  is  in  heaven   .   .   . 

4.8.  Ye  therefore  shall  be 
pejfect^  as  your  heavenly  Father 
is  perfect. 

Cf.  Luke  vi.  27.  Do  good  to 
them  which  hate  you,  bless  them 
that  curse  you,  pray  for  them 
that  despitefully  use  you. 

This  is  a  very  composite  passage  ;  phrases  are  taken  from  Eph. 
vi.  18  (supplication  ^r  ^////5^  Saints),  i  Tim.W.  i  {prayers  .  .  .for 
kings  and  all  that  are  in  high  places),  Phil.  iii.  1 8  {enemies  of  the 
cross  of  Christ),  i  Tim.  iv.  1 5  (that  thy  prayers  may  be  manifest  unto 
all).  The  word,  pejfect  makes  the  reference  to  Matt.  v.  44,  48  or 
some  very  similar  document  almost  certain,  and  there  is  no  need 
to  assume  any  reference  to  St.  Luke.  This  passage  has  been  put 
first  because  it  shows  very  clearly  the  way  in  which  the  language 
of  Polycarp  is  built  up  out  of  New  Testament  phrases  without 
either  exact  or  full  quotations.  We  may  assume  that  he  used  the 
Gospels  as  he  certainly  used  the  Epistles,  and  verbal  differences  or 
the  combination  of  separate  passages  will  not  necessarily  imply  the 
use  of  a  different  Gospel. 


Pol.  2.  And  ag.iin  blessed  are 
the  poor  and  they  that  are  per- 
secuted for  righteousness'  sake  ;  for 
theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  God. 


Matt.  V.  3.  Blessed  are  the 
poor  in  spirit ^r  theirs  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven. 

Luke.  vi.  20.      Blessed  are  ye 

poor :  for  you7's  is  the  kingdom  of 

God. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS  197 

Matt.  V.  lo.  Blessed  are  they 
that  have  been  persecuted  for  right- 
eousness^ sake  :  for  theirs  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven. 

This  might  come  from  St.  Matthew  or  St.  Luke,  or  from  some 
similar  source.  The  phrase  *  kingdom  of  God''  might  imply  a 
knowledge  of  some  other  document  besides  St.  Matthew. 

Pol.  7.     Entreating  the  all-  Matt.  vi.   13.     And  bring  us 

seeing   God  with   supplications  not  into  temptation. 

that  He  bring  us  not  into  tempta-  Cf.  Luke  xi.  4. 

//(?«,  according  as  the  Lord  said,  Matt.    xxvi.  41.      The    spirit 

The  spirit  indeed  is  willing^  but  indeed   is   zviliing,    but   the  flesh 

the  flesh  is  weak.  is  weak. 

Cf.  Mark  xiv.  38. 

In  the  first  citation,  the  resemblance  both  in  St.  Mark  and  St. 
Luke  is  exact,  but  it  is  obvious  that  no  stress  can  be  laid  on  the 
quotation,  as  it  may  be  presumed  that  the  Lord's  Prayer  was 
already  in  use  among  Christians.  In  the  second  quotation,  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Mark  agree  exactly,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to 
say  from  which  the  quotation  comes.  It  is  also  again  conceivable 
that  it  came  from  a  common  source,  if  there  was  one.  But  St. 
Matthew's  Gospel  Is  a  quite  sufficient  source  for  both  passages. 

I  Clem.  13.  Most  of  all 
remembering  the  words  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  which  He  spake, 
teaching  forbearance  and  long 
suffering  :  for  thus  He  spake  : 

Have  mercy  that  ye  may  re- 
ceive mercy  ;  forgive,  that  it 
may  be  forgiven  to  you.  As 
ye  do,  so  shall  it  be  done  to 
you.  As  ye  give,  so  shall  it  be 
given  unto  you.  As  ye  judge^ 
so  shall  ye  be  judged.  As  ye 
show  kindness,  so  shall  kindness 
be    showed    unto    you.      With 


198 


APPENDIX 


what  measure  ye  mete^  it  shall  be 
measured  withal  to  you. 

Pol.  2.  But  remembering 
the  words  which  the  Lord 
spake,  and  He  taught :  "Judge 
not,  that  ye  be  not  judged.  For- 
give and  it  will  be  forgiven  to 
you.  Have  mercy  that  ye  may 
receive  mercy.  With  what  measure 
ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you 
again. 


Matt.  vii.  I,  2.  "Judge  not, 
that  ye  be  not  judged.  For  with 
what  judgement  ye  judge,  ye 
shall  be  judged  :  and  with  what 
measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured 
unto  you. 

Luke  vi.  36-38,  Be  ye  merci- 
ful, even  as  your  Father  is  merci- 
ful. And  judge  not,  and  ye 
shall  not  be  judged :  and  con- 
demn not^  and  ye  shall  not  be 
condemned  :  release,  and  ye 
shall  be  released  :  give,  and  it 
shall  be  given  unto  you  :  good 
measure,  pressed  down,  shaken 
together,  running  over,  shall 
they  give  into  your  bosom. 
For  with  zvhat  measure  ye  mete,  it 
shall  be  measured  to  you  again. 
See  also  Math.  vi.  14,  15. 

The  variations  from  the  language  of  our  Gospels  and  the  re- 
semblance between  the  quotation  in  Clement  and  that  in  Polycarp 
may  be  taken  to  show  : 

(i)  That  the  quotations  were  then  unwritten  tradition. 
or  (2)  That  the  writers  had  another  and  earlier  form  of  the  Gospel 
narrative. 

But  ( I )  this  is  one  of  the  passages  in  which  Polycarp  shows  a 
knowledge  of  Clement. 

(2)  The  deviations  from  the  Gospel  narrative  are  not  in  the 
direction  of  a  simpler  form,  but  of  greater  elaboration.  They  could 
be  quite  adequately  explained  as  a  free  working  up  of  documents 
which  we  possess,  in  the  same  manner  as  in  other  quotations  and 
adaptations  in  Polycarp  and  Clement. 

I  Clem.  46.  Remember  the  words  of  Jesus  our  Lord  :  for  He 
said,   Woe  unto   that  man;  it  zuere  good  for  him  if  he  had  not  been 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS  199 

born^  rather  than  that  he  should  offend  one  of  Mine  elect.  It  wen 
better  for  him  that  a  mill  stone  were  hanged  about  him,  and  he  cast  into 
the  sea,  than  that  he  should  pervert  one  of  Mine  elect. 

This  comes  from  two  places  : 

(i)  Matt.  xxvi.  i\-=Mark  xiv.  21.  Woe  unto  that  man  by 
whom  the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed  !  it  had  been  good  for  that  man 
if  he  had  not  been  born. 

Luke  xxii.  22.  But  woe  unto  that  man  by  whom  he  is  be- 
trayed. 

Here  the  resemblance  is  closest  with  the  first  passage. 

(2)  Matt,  xviii,  6,  7.  But  whoso  shall  of  end  one  of  these  little 
ones  which  believe  in  me,  it  were  better  for  him  that  a  mill 
stone  zuere  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  that  he  were  drowned  in  the 
depths  of  the  sea.  Woe  unto  the  world  because  of  offences  !  for  it 
must  needs  be  that  offences  come  :  but  woe  to  that  man  by  whom 
the  offence  cometh. 

Mark  ix,  42.  And  whosoever  shall  offend  one  of  these  little 
ones  that  believe  in  me,  it  is  better  for  him  that  a  mill  stone  were 
hanged  about  his  neck,  and  he  were  cast  into  the  sea. 

Luke  xvii.  i,  2.  It  is  impossible  but  that  offences  will  come: 
but  ivoe  unto  him  by  whom  they  come!  It  were  better  for 
him  that  a  mill  stone  were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  he  cast  into 
the  sea,  than  that  he  should  offend  one  of  these  little  ones. 

Here  the  resemblance  is  most  clearly  to  St.  Matthew,  and  there 
is  one  remarkable  word  KaTaTrovncrdrjvat  which  one  might 
naturally  suppose  was  drawn  thence.  There  is  a  slight  resemblance 
in  the  form  of  the  sentence  which  might  suggest  that  St.  Luke 
had  been  used,  but  no  stress  can  be  laid  upon  it. 

The  only  marked  contrast  with  the  Gospel  narrative  is  the  use 
of  the  word  '  elect'  for  *  little  ones.'     (cf  Mk.  xiii.  22.) 

I  Clem.  24.  The  sower  goeth  forth  and  casteth  into  the  earth 
each  of  the  seeds  ;  and  these  falling  into  the  earth  dry  and  bear 
decay  :  then  out  of  their  decay  the  mightiness  of  the  Master's  provi- 
dence raiseth  them  up,  and  from  being  one  they  increase  manifold 
and  bear  fruit. 

The  first  words  are  clearly  a  reminiscence  of  the  Gospel  narra- 
tive, but  the  words  e^rjXdev  6  (nreipoju  occur  in  exactly  the  same 
form  in  all  the  Gospels. 


200 


APPENDIX 


Did.  I.  The  way  of  life  is 
this.  First  of  all,  thou  shalt  love 
the  God  that  made  thee  ; 
secondly,  th^  neighbour  as  thyself. 
And  all  things  whatsoever  thou 
wouldest  not  have  hefal  thyself, 
neither  do  thou  unto  another.  Now 
of  these  words  the  doctrine  is 
this.  Bless  them  that  curse  you, 
and  p?'ay  for  your  enemies,  and 
fast  for  them  that  persecute  you  : 
for  what  thank  is  it,  if  ye  love  them 
that  love  you?  Do  ?iot  even  the 
Gentiles  the  same?  But  do  ye 
love  them  that  hate  you,  and  ye 
shall  not  have  an  enemy.  Ab- 
stain thou  from  fleshy  and 
bodily  lusts.  If  any  man  give 
thee  a  blow  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn 
to  him  the  other  also,  and  thou 
shalt  be  perfect;  if  a  man  compel 
thee  to  go  with  him  one  mile,  go 
with  him  tzvain ;  if  a  man  take 
away  thy  cloak,  give  him  thy  coat 
also;  if  a  man  take  away  from 
thee  that  which  is  thine  own, 
ask  it  not  back,  for  neither  art 
thou  able ;  to  every  man  that 
asketh  of  thee  give,  and  ask  not 
back. 


Matt.  xxii.  37,  39.  Thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with 
all  thy  heart. 

39.  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself 

Matt.  V.  44.  Love  your 
enemies,  pray  for  them  that 
persecute  you. 

46.  For  if  ye  love  them  that 
love  you,  what  rezcard  have  you, 
do  not  even  the  publicans  the  same. 

Luke  vi.  27.  Love  your  ene- 
mies ;  do  good  to  them  that 
hate  you. 

3  2.  And  if  ye  love  them  that  love 
you,  what  thank  have  ye,  for  even 
sinners  love  those  that  love  them. 

3  5 .      But  love  your  enemies. 

Matt.  V.  39.  Whosoever 
smiteth  thee  on  thy  right  cheek, 
turn  to  him  the  other  also, 

40.  And  if  any  man  would  go 
to  lazv  mith  thee,  and  take  away 
thy  coat,  let  him  have  thy  cloak 
also. 

41.  And  whosoever  shall  compel 
thee  to  go  one  mile,  go  with  him 
twain. 

42.  Give  to  him  that  asketh 
of  thee,  and  from  him  that  would 
borrow  of  thee  turn  not  thou 
away. 

Luke  vi.  30.  Give  to  every 
one  that  asketh  thee :  and  of  him 
that  taketh  away  thy  goods,  ask 
them  not  again. 


ST.    MATTHEW  S    GOSPEL  20I 

(3)  Sl  Matthew's  Gospel. 

Did.  I.     Woe    to    him   that  Matt.  v.  25.     Verily,    I    say 

receiveth  ;  for  if  a  man  receiveth       unto  thee,  thou  shalt  by  no  means 
having    need,    he    is    guiltless  ;      come  out  thence,  till  thou  have  paid 
biit  he  that  hath  no  need  shall      the  last  farthing. 
give  satisfaction  why  and  where- 
fore he  received;  and  being  put 
in  confinement,  he  shall  be  ex- 
amined   concerning    the    deeds 
that  he  hath  done,  and  he  shall 
not  come  out  thence  until  he  hath 
paid    the    last    farthing.      Yea, 
as  touching  this  also  it  is  said  : 
Let     thine     alms     sweat     into 
thine    hands    until    thou    shalt 
have  learnt  to  whom  to  give. 

It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  passage  in  St.  Matthew  is  in 
its  original  context  and  not  that  in  the  Didache. 

Did.  9.    But  let  no  one  eat  Matt.  vii.  6.     Give    ?iot    that 

or  drink  of  this  eucharistic  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs. 
thanksgiving,  but  they  that  have 
been  baptized  into  the  name  of 
the  Lord  ;  for  concerning  this 
also  the  Lord  hath  said :  Give 
not  that  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs. 

Here    St.    Matthew's   Gospel    and   not    the    Didache  gives   the 
original  setting. 

Ign.  Smyrn.  i.     Baptized  by  Matt.  iii.  15.     Suffer  it  now, 

John  that  all  righteousness  might  for    thus    it    becometh    us    to 

be  fulfilled  by  Him.  fulfil  all  righteousness. 

This  quite  clearly  comes  from  St.  Matthew. 

Ign.     Smyrn.     6.      He     that  Matt.  xix.  12.      He    that    is 

receiveth,  let  him  receive.  able  to  receive  it,  let  him  receive  it. 


202 


APPENDIX 


Ign.  Pol.    2.      Be  thou    pru-  Matt.  x.  i6.    Be  ye  therefore 

dent  as  the  serpent  in  all  things  wise  as  serpents  and  harmless  as 

and  guileless  always  as  the  dove.  doves. 

Ign.  Eph.  14.      The    tree    is  Matt.  xii.  33.      For   the   tree 

manifest  from  its  fruit ;    so  they  is  known  by  its  fruit. 
that  profess  to  be   Christ's  shall 
be  seen  through  their  actions. 

Did.  7.  But  concerning  baptism,  thus  shall  ye  baptize.  Having 
first  recited  all  these  things,  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father^  and  oj 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  living  water. 

See  Matt,  xxviii.  17.  But  the  formula  might  of  course  be 
known  independently  of  the  Gospel,  and  probably  existed  earlier. 

Did.  8.  Neither  pray  ye  as  the  hypocrites,  but  as  the  Lord 
commanded  in  His  Gospel,  thus  pray  ye  :  Our  Father  which  art  in 
heaven,  hallowed  he  Thy  name;  Thy  kingdom  come ;  Thy  will  he  done, 
as  in  heaven,  so  also  on  earth;  give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread;  and 
forgive  us  our  debt,  as  we  also  forgive  our  debtors;  and  lead  us  not  into 
temptation,  but  deliver  us  from  the  evil  one,  for  Thine  is  the  power  and 
the  glory,  for  ever  and  ever.     Three  times  in  the  day  pray  ye  so. 

See  Matt.  vi.  16,  vi.  9-13.  The  slight  allusion  to  the  hypo- 
crites seems  conclusive  as  to  the  source. 

(4)  St.  Mark. 


Pol.  5.  Walking  according 
to  the  truth  of  the  Lord,  who 
became  a  minister  of  all. 


Mark  ix.  35.  And  he  saith 
unto  them,  If  any  man  would 
be  first,  he  shall  be  last  of  all, 
and  minister  of  all. 

The  particular  phrase  irdvrojv  Slolkovos  occurs  only  in  St.  Mark. 
In  Pol.  it  is  StcxKovos  TravTiov.  This  is  perhaps  the  only  quotation 
in  the  Apostolic  Fathers  which  seems  to  imply  the  knowledge  of 
St.  Mark's  Gospel,  and  this  may  perhaps  be  accidental. 


(5)  Si.  Luke. 

Did.  16.  Be  watchful  ^orjowr 
life  :  let  your  lamps  not  be 
quenched,  and  your  loins  not  un- 


Matt.  XXV.  13.  Watch  there- 
fore, for  ye  know  not  the  day 
nor  the  hour. 


THE    JOHANNINE    WRITINGS 


203 


girded^  but  be  ye  ready  ;  for  ye 
know  7iot  the  hour  In  which  our 
Lord  Cometh. 


Luke  xii.  35.  Let  your  loins 
be  girded  about,  and  your  lamps 
burning, 

40.  Be  ye  also  ready,  for  in 
an  hour  that  ye  think  not  the 
Son  of  Man  cometh. 

Mqtt.  xxiv.  42.  Watch 
therefore  :  for  ye  know  not  on 
what  day  your  Lord  cometh. 

The  passage  seems  to  imply  a  reminiscence  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel, 
as  well  as  St.  Matthew's. 


V.  The  Johannine  Writings. 


(i)  lUte  Gospel. 

Ign.  Phil.  7.  For  even  though 
certain  persons  desired  to  de- 
ceive me  after  the  flesh,  yet  the 
spirit  is  not  deceived,  being  from 
God  :  for  it  knoweth  whence  it 
cometh  and  where  it  goeth,  and  it 
searcheth  out  the  hidden  things. 


It    is    more     than     probable 
knowledge  of    the  Gospel.     So 


John  iii.  8.  The  wind 
bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and 
thou  hearest  the  voice  thereof, 
but  knozuest  not  whence  it  cometh, 
and  whither  It  goeth  :  so  is  every 
one  that  is  born  of  the  spirit. 

John  viii.  14.  Jesus  answered 
and  said  unto  them,  Even  if  I 
bear  witness  of  myself,  my 
witness  is  true :  for  I  know 
whence  1  came,  and  whither  I 
go ;  but  ye  know  not  whence  I 
came  and  whither  I  go. 

Cf.  I  Cor.  \\.  10.  But  unto 
us  God  revealed  them  through 
the  Spirit  :  for  the  Spirit 
searcheth  all  things,  yea  the  deep 
thingsofGod  (cf.also£)^/5.  v.  i  3). 

that    this    quotation    implies    a 
clear  is    it    that   it  used   to   be 


204  APPENDIX 

quoted  as  a  proof  of  the  late  date  of  Ignatius.  In  Encyclopaedia 
Bibllca  II.,  1830,  Abbott  suggests  that  it  comes  from  Philo.  But 
the  passage  he  quotes  has  only  a  most  distant  resemblance 
to  the  one  before  us.  And  as  Zahn  says,  the  passage  in  Ignatius 
gains  greatly  in  point  when  it  is  considered  in  contrast  to 
that  in  St.  John.  Ignatius  says  that  the  Spirit  itself  knoweth 
whence  it  cometh  and  whither  it  goeth,  clearly  suggesting  that 
there  was  a  passage  where  something  had  been  said  about 
mankind  not  knowing  of  the  Spirit  whence  it  comes  and  whither 
it  goes. 

Ign.  Rom.  7.  My  lust  hath  been  crucified,  and  there  is  no  fire 
of  material  longing  in  me,  but  only  water  living  and  speaking  in 
me,  saying  within  me,  Come  to  the  Father.  I  have  no  delight 
in  the  food  of  corruption  or  in  the  delights  of  this  life.  I  desire 
the  bread  of  God,  which  is  the  flesh  of  Christ,  who  was  of  the 
seed  of  David :  and  for  a  draught  I  desire  His  blood,  which  is 
love  incorruptible. 

Lightfoot  ad  loc.  '' Doubtless  a  reference  to  John  iv.  10,  11,  as 
indeed  the  whole  passage  is  inspired  by  the  Fourth  Gospel." 

(i)  John  iv.  10.  If  thou  knewest  the  gift  of  God,  and  who  it 
is  that  saith  to  thee,  Give  me  to  drink  :  thou  wouldest  have  asked 
of  him,  and  he  would  have  given  thee  living  water. 

II.     ...   From  whence  then  hast  thou  that  living  water. 

The  phrase  is  v^mp  ^Q>v  both  in  the  Gospel  and  in  Ignatius. 

(2)  dprov  Qeov.  Here  again  is  an  expression  taken  from 
St.  John's  Gospel,  vi.  33.  Indeed  the  whole  context  is  suggested 
by  the  question  of  the  Evangelist's  narrative.  The  contrast  of  the 
perishable  and  imperishable  food,  the  bread  and  the  cup  as 
representing  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  the  mystical  power 
emanating  therefrom  are  all   ideas  contained  in   the  context  (vi. 

4-3-59^ 

(3)  d/OTos  Qeov.      yohi  vi.    33.    etc.     crdp^  John    vi.    52,    etc. 

dcfiOapTos.      Cf.  alijjvLos.      John  vi.  40.  etc. 

Ign.  Magn.  8.  There  is  one  God  who  i7?^«i/i'j/'f<^  Himself  through 
Jesus    Christ    His    Son,   who  is    His  word   that   proceeded   from 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    ST.    JOHN  205 

silence,   who   in  all  things  was  well-pleasing  unto  Him    that   sent 
Him. 

Here  we  have  a  combination  of  Johannine  thoughts  : 
(i)  God  manifested  by  Jesus  Christ.    John  xvii.  13,  "And  this 
is  life  eternal,  that  they  should  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and 
him  whom  thou  didst  send,  even  Jesus  Christ.      6.   I  manifested 
thy  name  unto  the  men,"  etc. 

(2)  The  application  of  the  word  Aoyo?  to  Christ. 

(3)  Jesus  Christ  was  well  pleasing  to  Him  that  sent  Him. 
John.  viii.  29,  I  do  always  the  things  that  are  pleasing  to  Him. 
Kara  iravra  evrjpccrTrjcrev  toj  TTkfx\pavri  dvTov  on  iyo)  rd  dpeirra 
avTip  TTOLco  TravTore. 

(4)  The  phrase  Mm  that  sent  is  a  distinctively  Johannine  one. 
It  occurs  constantly  in  St.  John's  Gospel  and  nowhere  else  in  the 
N.T.       V.  23.  Tou  7refx\l/avTos  aiJToi',  30  tov  TrefJLij/avTos  /xe,  vi.  44 

(2)  The  Epistles  of  St.  John. 

Pol.  7.   For  every  one  who  shall  i  John  iv.  2,  3.    Every  spirit 

not  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  which  confesseth  that  Jesus 
come  in  the  flesh  is  antichrist :  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  of 
and  whosoever  shall  not  confess  God  :  and  every  spirit  which 
the  testimony  of  the  Cross,  is  of  confesseth  «(?/ Jesus  is  not  of  God  : 
the  devil ;  and  whosoever  shall  and  this  is  the  spirit  of  the 
pervert  the  oracles  of  the  Lord  antichrist,  whereof  ye  have  heard 
to  his  own  lusts,  and  say  that  that  it  cometh,  and  now  it  is 
there  is  neither  resurrection  nor  in  the  world  already, 
judgment,  that  man  is  the  first-  2  John  7.    For  many  deceiv- 

born  of  Satan.  ers    are    gone    forth     into    the 

world,  even  they  that  confess  not 
that  Jesus  Christ  cometh  in  the 
flesh.  This  is  the  deceiver  and 
the  antichrist. 

Most  people  will  probably  be  of  opinion  that  the  resemblance 
is  so  close  as  to  imply  quotation.  Abbott  {Enc.  Brit.  II.,  1831) 
thinks  that  Eusebius  "  regarded  the  words  not  as  a  quotation  but 
as  a  mere  use  of  Johannine  traditions  in  vogue  during  the  conflict 
against    Donatism."      To    attribute    to    Eusebius    such    modern 


2o6  APPENDIX 

notions  is  a  ludicrous  anachronism,  and   will  shew  the  length  to 
which  these  neo-apologists  can  go. 

Did,     lo.   Remember,  Lord,  i     John    iv.    i8.     He    that 

Thy  Church,  to  deliver  it  from  feareth   is  not   made  perfect   in 

all  evil  and  to  perfect  it  in  Thy  love, 
love. 

The  expression  to  perfect  in  love  is  sufficiently  remarkable  to 
suggest  literary  obligation.  In  the  Eucharistic  prayer  of  the 
Didache  there  are  other  reminiscences  of  Johannine  thought. 

There  is  no  passage  resembling  the  Apocalypse  worth  quoting. 

V.  'The  remaining  books.     Of  the  remaining  books 

I    Peter    is    very    well    attested,   but    of   2    Peter, 

James,    and    Jude    there    are    no    quotations    worth 

examining. 

Pol.    I.       Our    Lord    Jesus  i  Pet.  i.  8.     Whom  not  having 

Christ,    who    endured    to    face  seen  ye  love ;  on  whom,  though 

even  death  for  our  sins  .  .  .  on  now  ye   see  him    not,   yet  be- 

whom,  though  ye  saw  Him  not^  ye  lieving,  ye  rejoice  greatly  with 

believe  with  joy  unspeakable  and  joy  unspeakable  and  full  ofgloty. 
full  of  glory. 

It  is  really  difficult  to  believe  that  the  somewhat  striking 
phrase,  X'^P^  ave/cAaXy^TO)  koI  SeSo^acfxevyy  could  be  arrived  at 
independently  by  two  separate  writers. 

Pol.  2.     Wherefore  girding  up  i  Pet.  i.  13.     Wherefore  gird- 

your  loins^  serve  God  in  fear  and       ing  up  the  loins  of  your  mind,  be 
truth.  sober. 

This  is  not  of  course  a  quotation  on  which  much  less  stress 
can  be  laid.  It  may  be  noted  that  the  second  part  of  the 
passage  in   Polycarp  is  a  reminiscence  of  Ps.  ii.   1 1   (LXX.). 

Pol.    2.      For   that    ye    have  i   Pet.  i.  21.     Who  through 

believed  on  Him  that  raised  our  him  are  believers  in  God,  which 

Lord  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead  raised  him  from  the  dead  and  gave 

and  gave  unto  Him  glory ^  and  a  him  glory. 
throne  on  His  right  hand. 


I    PETER 


207 


Pol.    5.     For    It    is    a    good  i    Pet.    ii.    11.      Beloved,    I 

thing    to    refrain   from   lust   in  beseech  you  as  sojourners  and 

the  world,  _y^;'  every  lust  warreth  pilgrims,  to  abstain  from  fleshly 

against  the  Spirit.  lusts ^  ivhich  war  against  the  soul. 

The   substitution    of  spirit  for  soul  comes  perhaps  from   Gal. 

V.  17. 


12.     Having  your 
honest    among    the 


Pol.    10.     Having  your   con-  i   Fet.  ii. 

versation  unblameable  among  the  conversation 

GentileSy  that   from  your  good  Gentiles. 
works    both    ye    may    receive 
praise  and  the    Lord   may  not 
be  blasphemed  in  you. 

There  is  also  in  the  same  chapter  a  reminiscence  of  i  Pet.  ii.  17. 

Pol.  8.  Jesus  Christ  who  bare  i  Pet.  ii.  21.    Who  did  no  sin, 

our  sins  in  His  own  body  on  the  neither   was  guile  found    in   his 


mouth.   .  .  . 

24.     Who  his  ozvn  self  bare  our 
sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree. 


tree,  who  did  no  sin,  neither  was 
guile  found  in  His  mouthy  but  for 
our  sakes  He  endured  all  things, 
that  we  might  live  in  Him. 

The  origin  of  the  language  of  both  passages  is  //.  lili.  9,  12,  but 
Polycarp  has  expressions  which  come  from  i  Peter. 

Pol.  2.     "Not  renderifig  evil  for  i  Pet.  Hi.  9.     Not  rende?-i?ig 

evil,    or   railing  for   railmg,    or  evil  for  evil,  or  railing  for  railing : 

blow  for   blow,  or  cursing  for  but  contrariwise  blessing. 
cursing. 

The  striking  expression  also  '■sober  unto  prayer''  (i  Pet.  iv.  7) 
occurs  Pol.  7. 


I  Clem.  49,  Love  joineth 
us  unto  God  ;  love  covereth  a 
multitude  of  sins ;  love  endureth 
all  things,  is  long  suffering  In 
all  things. 

Clement  combines  with  a  quotation  from  St.  Peter  a  reminiscence 
of  I  Cor.  xlil.  4,  7. 


I  Pet.  iv.  8.  Above  all 
things  being  fervent  In  your 
love  among  yours-elves  ;  for  love 
covereth  a  multitude  of  sins. 


The  Historical  Value  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles. 


The  subject  upon  which  it  is  my  duty  to  speak  to 
you  to-day  is  one  which  has  been  much  debated  by 
scholars  during  the  last  half  century,  and  round  which 
an  enormous  literature  has  grown.  It  will  only  be 
possible  to  place  before  you  the  main  features  of  the 
problem  which  presents  itself,  and  to  indicate  some 
of  the  solutions  which  have  been  proposed.  It  may 
help  towards  a  clearer  understanding  of  the  issues,  if 
we  begin  by  a  few  general  considerations  before  we 
proceed  to  details. 

{a)  We  are  to  discuss  the  historical  value  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  not  the  inspiration  of  its  author. 
We  are  to  regard  this  book  as  a  contribution  to  the 
history  of  Christian  origins,  and  we  are  to  approach 
its  study  with  an  open  mind,  and,  so  far  as  is  possible, 
without  presuppositions.  That  the  book  was  included 
by  the  early  Church  among  canonical  writings,  and  that 


CANONICITY  209 

it  received  a  place  in  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, so  soon  as  the  idea  of  a  Canon  was  recognised, 
prove,  indeed,  that  it  has  always  been  held  up  by 
the  Church  to  the  respect  and  veneration  of  her  faith- 
ful members,  and  that  it  is  not,  in  her  view,  merely 
one  out  of  many  treatises  on  ecclesiastical  history. 
Like  the  other  canonical  writings,  it  has  special  title 
to  the  epithet  '  inspired  '  ;  but  we  are  beginning  to 
recognise  that  the  nature  and  limits  of  that  inspiration 
are  extremely  hard  to  define,  and  that  we  are  on 
insecure  ground  if  we  attempt  to  argue  a  priori  from 
inspiration  to  inerrancy.  We  shall  not,  then,  pre- 
judge the  question  before  us  by  making  assumptions 
as  to  the  degree  in  which  inspiration  guarantees 
historical  accuracy,  and  we  shall  try  to  test  the 
historical  value  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  by  the 
ordinary  methods  of  critical  enquiry.  No  book  of 
the  Bible  is  likely  to  suffer  in  our  esteem,  if  such 
methods  are  used  with  honesty,  sobriety,  and 
reverence. 

{h^)  Further,  the  question  '  Is  the  Acts  a  valuable 
contribution  to  history '  must  not  be  confused  with 
the  question  '  Can  any  errors  in  detail  be  detected  in 
it } '  No  doubt,  if  a  book  were  proved  to  contain  a 
large  number  of  inaccurate  statements,  our  estimate 
of  its  historical  value  would  be  seriously  impaired. 
But  one  slip  in  memory  or  one  blunder  in  the 
arrangement  of  materials  drawn  from  diverse  sources 


210    HISTORICAL    VALUE    OF    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES 

does  not  destroy  the  authority  of  a  modern  historian ; 
if  it  were  so,  the  reputation  of  many  great  writers 
would  be  tarnished.  We  do  not  expect  infallibility 
even  from  a  Freeman  or  a  Stubbs  or  a  Lecky,  while 
no  one  doubts  the  historical  value  of  their  work. 
And  thus,  we  must  not  permit  ourselves  to  think 
that  the  general  authority  of  the  Acts  would  disappear, 
if  here  and  there  it  were  difficult  to  reconcile  the 
author's  language  with  independent  evidence  for  the 
same  period.  Falsus  in  uno^  falsus  in  omnibus  may 
be  a  prudent  legal  maxim  when  the  veracity  of  a 
witness  is  in  question  ;  it  is  an  extremely  uncritical 
maxim  if  it  is  applied  to  the  credibility  of  a  historian, 
whose  good  faith  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt. 

(r)  One  other  preliminary  observation  must  be 
made.  The  author  of  the  Acts  believed  in  the  possi- 
bility of  what  we  call  'miracles'  ;  and  he  records  the 
occurrence  of  a  considerable  number,  some  of  them 
of  a  truly  remarkable  character.  In  this  he  was  not 
singular.  All  Christians  of  the  early  centuries,  and 
most  Christians  of  later  centuries,  have  taken  the 
same  view  of  the  possibility^  at  least,  of  miraculous 
intervention,  and  of  the  atmosphere  of  miracle,  so  to 
speak,  by  which  the  beginnings  of  Christianity  were 
surrounded.  I  say  nothing  now  as  to  whether  this 
view  is  tenable  or  not — we  are  not  met  together  to 
consider  the  problem  of  miracle ;  but  I  say  that  belief 
in  God's  will  and  power  to  work  in  ways  which  seem 


MIRACLES  211 

to  US  miraculous  does  not  necessarily  make  a  man  an 
inaccurate  observer  or  an  untrustworthy  historian. 
It  may  be  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  classified  as 
*  miraculous '  some  occurrences  in  which  we,  with  our 
wider  knowledge,  would  perceive  only  the  operation 
of  the  ordinary  laws  of  nature  and  of  God  ;  but  that, 
if  true,  would  only  prove  that  he  was  a  man  of  his 
own  time  and  not  of  ours.  In  brief,  we  have  no  sort 
of  title  to  assume  that  the  miracle  stories  of  the  Acts 
are  necessarily  untrue  ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  the 
fact  that  the  author  records  them  without  any  hesita- 
tion does  not  put  him  out  of  court  as  a  historian. 
Pascal  accepted  the  evidence  for  an  alleged  miracle  of 
his  own  day,  which  most  of  us  are  indisposed,  I 
imagine,  to  believe — the  so-called  Miracle  of  the 
Holy  Thorn — but  he  would  be  a  bold  man  who 
would  allege,  therefore,  that  Pascal  was  a  bad  judge 
of  evidence  or  an  untrustworthy  writer. 

With  these  prefatory  cautions,  we  pass  to  the  book 
of  the  Acts.  And  it  may  be  said  at  once  that  the 
author  of  this  book  in  the  form  in  which  we  have  it 
is  indisputably  the  author  of  the  Third  Gospel.  The 
claim  is  made  in  the  preface  or  dedication  where  the 
author  speaks  of  the  '  former  treatise '  which  he  had 
addressed  to  his  friend,  Theophilus.  And  the  claim 
is  amply  justified  by  the  style  and  language  of  the 
book  which  are  indistinguishable  from  the  style 
and  language  of  the  Gospel.     "  We  need  not  stop," 


212     HISTORICAL    VALUE    OF    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES 

said  Renan,  "  to  prove  this  proposition  which  has 
never  been  seriously  contested."  The  name  of  the 
common  author  has  been  handed  down  by  an 
unbroken  tradition  from  early  times,  which  designates 
him  as  St.  Luke,  "  the  beloved  physician,"  the  com- 
panion and  friend  of  St.  Paul.  We  shall  return  to 
this  point  presently,  but  meantime  we  shall  call  him 
St.  Luke,  for  convenience  sake.  And  inasmuch  as  he 
is  the  author  both  of  the  Third  Gospel  and  the  Acts, 
a  good  deal  that  will  be  said  of  his  characteristics  as  a 
historian  applies  alike  to  both  books. 

I.  The  first  thing  that  strikes  us,  perhaps,  when 
we  compare  St.  Luke's  writings  with  the  other 
historical  books  of  the  New  Testament,  is  the 
author's  tendency  to  connect  his  narrative  with  the 
events  of  the  contemporary  history  of  the  Roman 
Empire.  As  Zahn  has  pointed  out,  no  other 
writer  of  the  New  Testam.ent  even  names  an 
Emperor,  but  St.  Luke  names  Augustus,  Tiberius, 
Claudius,  and  is  at  pains  to  date  the  events  which 
he  describes  by  the  year  of  the  Emperor's  reign. 
We  might  almost  say  that  he  goes  out  of  his  way 
to  depict  the  political  and  social  environment  of  the 
Apostolic  age.  And  he  moves  quite  freely  in  describ- 
ing the  complicated  system  of  government  which 
prevailed  all  over  the  provinces.  It  is  possible  in 
many  cases  to  check  the  accuracy  of  his  allusions  to 
it    from    the    evidence    which    the    inscriptions    and 


ACCURACY     IN    TITLES  213 

the  literature  afford  of  the  methods  of  Roman 
provincial  administration.  It  has  many  times  been 
pointed  out,  and  not  least  successfully  by  our  own 
scholars,  that  his  accuracy  is  quite  remarkable  in 
details.  This  was  fully  worked  out  in  an  essay 
by  Bishop  Lightfoot,  which  appeared  in  the 
Contemporary  Review  for  1878,  and  which  has  since 
been  reprinted  ;^  and  reference  may  also  be  made 
to  the  pages  of  Dr.  Salmon's  Introduction  to  the 
New  Testament^  which  deals  with  the  Acts.  But 
although  the  topic  is  a  well-worn  one,  it  must  not 
be  omitted  altogether,  and  so  I  mention  a  few 
examples  of  St.  Luke's  accuracy  in  the  use  of  titles. 

[a)  He  distinguishes,  with  the  utmost  precision, 
between  the  senatorial  and  imperial  provinces  of 
the  Empire,  that  is,  between  the  provinces  which 
were  governed  by  a  Proconsul  as  the  representative 
of  the  Senate,  and  those  which  were  ruled  by  a 
Propraetor  as  the  Emperor's  viceroy.  This  is  a 
matter  about  which  mistakes  could  hardly  be 
avoided  by  a  writer  who  had  not  access  to  exact 
means  of  information.  In  times  of  peace  a  province 
would  naturally  be  placed  under  a  Proconsul,  but 
if  martial  law  became  necessary  it  would  be  trans- 
ferred to  the  charge  of  a  Propraetor  ;  and  thus  a 
province  which  was  senatorial  to-day  might  be 
imperial  to-morrow.  It  is  remarkable  that  St.  Luke 
^Essays  on  Supernatural  Religion,  p.  291  ff. 


214    HISTORICAL    VALUE    OF    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES 

never  once  misapplies  these  titles.  In  Ac.  xviii.  12, 
Gallio  is  rightly  called  Proconsul  of  Achaia,  and  in 
xiii.  7,  Sergius  Paulus  is  named  as  the  Proconsul  of 
Cyprus  ;  and  in  both  cases  the  administration  of  the 
province  had  changed  its  character  from  time  to  time. 

{b)  Again  the  governor  of  Malta  is  given  his 
correct  designation,  6  Trpwrog  (Ac.  xxviii.  7),  the  Primus. 
This  is  not  a  title  that  is  found  in  literature  else- 
where, and  we  should  not  be  able  to  explain  it  were 
it  not  that  inscriptions  have  been  discovered  at  Malta 
which  entirely  confirm  St.  Luke's  phraseology. 

(r)  Again,  he  knows  that  the  magistrates  at 
Philippi  are  called  a-TparrjyoL  (xvi.  20)  or  praetors  ; 
while  the  magistrates  at  Thessalonica  are  given  the  un- 
usual title  of  TToXirdpxai  (xvii.  6)  or  burgomasters.  This 
latter  designation  is  found  in  no  extant  author,  but 
that  it  was  in  local  use  in  Macedonia,  and  notably  in 
Thessalonica  itself,  has  been  confirmed  by  the 
indubitable  testimony  of  inscriptions.^ 

These  considerations  are  of  such  weight  that  they 
have  been  recognised  as  noteworthy  even  by  critics 
who  do  not  count  the  book  of  the  Acts  to  be  of 
any  special  historical  value.  One  of  the  most  recent 
writers  on  the  subject,  Professor  Schmiedel,  who 
disparages  the  book  as  a  whole,  is  constrained  to 
admit  :    "  After    every    deduction    has    been    made, 

^  The  references    will    be    found   in   Dr.   Knowling's   full  and 
careful  commentary  on  the  Acts  in  the  Exposiior^s  Greek  Testament. 


ST.     LUKE    AND    JOSEPHUS  21  5 

Acts  certainly  contains  many  data  that  are  correct, 
as  for  example,  especially  in  the  matter  of  proper 
names,  such  as  Jason,  Titius  Justus,  Crispus, 
Sosthenes ;  or  in  titles,  touches  such  as  the  title 
iroKiTapyai^  which  is  verified  by  inscriptions  for 
Thessalonica,  as  is  the  title  of  irpfhro^  for  Malta,  and 
probably  the  name  of  Sergius  Paulus  as  Proconsul 
for  Cyprus."  ^ 

Another  point  which  has  received  a  good  deal 
of  attention  of  recent  years  is  the  topographical 
knowledge  displayed  by  the  author,  especially  in 
connection  with  St.  Paul's  journeys  through  the 
less  known  parts  of  Asia  Minor.  This  has  been 
worked  out  by  Prof.  Ramsay  in  his  interesting 
books,  T^he  Church  and  the  Roman  Empire  and  ^t. 
Paul  the  'Traveller^  to  which  the  reader  may  be  re- 
ferred for  details. 

Something  should  now  be  said  about  the  author's 
allusions  to  events  of  contemporary  local  history, 
which  are  mentioned  in  the  pages  of  the  Jewish 
historian  Josephus.  In  three  cases  a  particular  com- 
parison has  been  instituted  between  the  notices  of 
events  in  the  Acts  and  in  the  Antiquities  of  Josephus ; 
namely,  the  Death  of  Herod  Agrippa  (Ac.  xii.  21  ; 
cp.  Antt.  xix.  8,  2),  the  Rebellion  of  the  Egyptian 
Impostor  (Ac.  xxi.  38  ;  cp.  ^;///.xx.  8,6,B.  J.  11. 13,  5), 
and  the  Rising  of  Theudas,  and  subsequently  of 
1  EncycL  Biblicay  vol.  i.  s.v.  '  Acts,'  p.  47. 


2l6     HISTORICAL    VALUE    OF    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES 

Judas  of  Galilee  (Ac.  v.   36  ff. ;  cp.  AntL  xx.  5,  4, 
xviii.  I,  6,  B.J.  II.  8,  i  and  17,  8).     Speaking  in  general 
terms,  it  may  be  said  that  in  two  of  these  instances, 
at  least,  the  Acts  and   Josephus  are  at  variance  in 
regard  to  details,  the  number   of   the    rebels,   &c., 
while  Josephus   is  not  always  consistent  with    him- 
self.    The  discrepancies  are  not  easy  to  reconcile,  in 
the  fragmentary  condition  of  our  knowledge  of  the 
period ;     but    there    is    no    ground    for    supposing 
Josephus   to    have   been    better    informed    than    our 
author,  if  we  must   believe  that  one    or    other  has 
made  a  mistake.     One  inference,  however,  has  been 
drawn   from   these    parallel   narratives,  which   ought 
not  to  be   passed  by  without   pointing   out  its   pre- 
carious character.     It  has  been  argued  by  some  in- 
genious writers  that  in  the  pages  of  Josephus,  who 
wrote  about  93  a.d.,  we  have  before  us  the  authority 
to  which  the  author  of  Acts  was  indebted  when  he 
recorded  the  incidents  in  question.     Were  that  the 
case,  the  Acts  would  be  much  later  in  date  than  has 
been  generally  believed,  and  it  could  not  have  been 
written  by  a  contemporary  of  St.  Paul.     But,  indeed, 
the  inference  will  not  bear  investigation,  and  it  has 
been  rightly  rejected  by  the  best  critics  of  all  schools, 
by  Dr.  Harnack  as  well  as  by  Dr.  Sanday.    Whatever 
may  be  thought  of  the  relative  accuracy  of  the  Acts 
and    Josephus   in    the    matter  of  the    rebeUions    of 
Theudas    and    of  Judas,    the   discrepancies  between 


THE    PAULINE    LETTERS  217 

the  two  notices  are  too  great  to  permit  us  to  believe 
that  one  copied  from  the  other.  They  are  quite 
independent.^ 

II.  So  much  for  titles,  and  geographical  and  his- 
torical  allusions.     For   the   latter   part   of  the  Acts 
there   is,  however,  at  hand  another   means   of  con- 
trolling St.  Luke's  accuracy.     We  are  in  possession 
of  thirteen  Epistles  by  St.  Paul,  of  which  the  earlier 
letters  were  composed  during  circumstances  described 
in  the  Acts,  and  in  several  of  which  there  are  allusions 
to  St.  Paul's  movements  from  place  to  place.     The 
argument  resting  on  the  '  undesigned  coincidences ' 
between  the  Acts    and    the    Epistles    put    forth    by 
Paley  in  the  eighteenth  century  is  not  yet  superseded 
in  the  main,  although  some  details  require  modifica- 
tion ;  and  Paley 's  Horae  Paulinae  may  still  be  recom- 
mended as  an  introduction  to  the  "Higher  Criticism" 
of  the  New  Testament.     There  is  little  doubt  as  to 
the  independence  of  the  Acts  and  the  Pauline  letters  ; 
it  is  indeed  remarkable  that  the  author  of  the  Acts 
seems   to   have  had   no   acquaintance  whatever  with 
these  wonderful  writings.     Yet   it   is  found  that   in 
many  instances  allusions  in  the  Epistles,  especially  in 
the    great    controversial    group    of    letters    to    the 
Corinthians,  Romans,  and  Galatians,  harmonise  with 
what  the  Acts  has  to  tell  of  the  journeys  and  plans 

^  Comp.    Mr.    Hcadlam's  article    on    the    Acts    in     Hastings' 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible^  vol.  i.  p.  30. 


2l8     HISTORICAL    VALUE    OF    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES 

of  the  writer.  And  these  'undesigned  coincidences' 
go  far  to  convince  us  of  the  general  trustworthiness 
of  the  history.  It  is  true  that  there  are  some 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  reconciling  Gal.  i.  and  ii. 
with  the  Acts  ;  but  too  much  has  been  made  of  them. 
For  instance,  in  the  Acts  there  is  no  hint  of  St.  Paul's 
journey  to  Arabia  after  his  conversion,  of  which  he 
tells  in  Gal.  i.  17;  and,  again,  no  hint  of  his  controversy 
with  St.  Peter  at  Antioch,  of  which  he  speaks  with 
some  satisfaction  in  Gal.  ii.  11.  And  it  is,  perhaps, 
not  quite  certain  whether  we  ought  to  identify  St. 
Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem  which  he  mentions  in  Gal. 
ii.  I  with  the  visit  described  in  Ac.  xi.  30,  or  with 
that  described  in  Ac.  xv.  4  ff.,  although  the  balance 
of  opinion  (Hort,  Lightfoot,  etc.)  favours  the  latter 
view.  But  it  is  quite  clear  that  St.  Luke  does  not 
attempt  to  narrate  all  the  experiences  in  St.  Paul's 
eventful  ministry,  so  that  omissions  need  not 
surprise  us  ;  and,  again,  it  is  natural  that  he  should 
not  know  as  much  of  the  earlier  episodes  as  of  the 
later,  when  he  had  become  his  friend  and  companion.^ 

^Dr.  Chase,  in  his  admirable  Hulsean  Lectures  on  the  "Credibility 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  which  appeared  since  this  lecture  was 
delivered,  suggests  another  apposite  consideration.  "To  drag  out 
again  into  the  daylight  all  the  mistakes  and  heartburnings  of  the 
time,  if  indeed  St.  Luke  knew  them,  would  have  been  a  useless 
outrage,  and  he  was  not  guilty  of  it.  .  .  .  The  reticence  of  the 
Acts  is  not  an  argument  against  its  veracity.  .  .  .  The  tomb  of 
dead  controversies  ought  to  be  an  inviolable  resting-place"  (p.  92). 


THE    *  WE  '    SECTIONS  219 

We  have  now  come  to  the  point  at  which  it  is 
necessary  for  us  to  ask  for  the  evidence  supporting 
the  Church's  tradition  that  the  author  of  the  Acts 
was  this  '  Luke,  the  beloved  physician.'  I  need 
hardly  remind  you  that  there  are  three  sections  in  the 
later  part  of  the  Acts  in  which  the  writer  uses  the 
first  person  plural  when  telling  his  story.  They 
begin  according  to  the  common  text  at  Ac.  xvi.  lo} 
After  St.  Paul  had  seen  the  vision  of  the  man  of 
Macedonia  calling  for  help,  "  immediately  "  says  the 
writer,  "  we  endeavoured  to  go  into  Macedonia." 
The  writer  "  appears  to  have  joined  Paul  at  Troas 
and  to  have  accompanied  him  to  Philippi.  There  he 
seems  to  have  been  left  behind ;  for  when  Paul  leaves 
Philippi  the  use  of  the  pronoun  '  we '  ceases  and  is 
not  resumed  until  Paul  returns  to  Philippi  some  six 
or  seven  years  later.  Then  (xx.  5)  the  '  we  '  begins 
again  and  continues  till  the  arrival  in  Jerusalem 
(xxi.  18).  It  begins  again  in  ch.  xxvii.  with  St.  Paul's 
voyage  and  continues  until  his  arrival  in  Rome"^ 
(xxviii.  16).  These  sections,  at  least,  proceed  from 
an  eyewitness  ;  their  vividness  of  detail  and  exact 
knowledge  of  localities  leave  no  room  for  doubt  on 
this  point.     Mr.  James  Smith's  book  on  the  Voyage 


^  But  in  the  Western  text,  the  first  person  plural  is  used  also  at 
Ac.  xi.  28;  "when  we  had  been  gathered  together,"  which  con- 
nects the  writer  with  the  Church  of  Antioch. 

-Salmon,  Introduction  to  N,T.,  p.  300. 


220    HISTORICAL    VALUE    OF    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES 

and  Shipwreck  of  St.  Paul^  supplies  a  most  interesting 
and  convincing  commentary  upon  the  narrative  of 
Ac.  xxvii.  by  one  who  was  himself  conversant  with 
seafaring  matters  and  who  therefore  spoke  with 
authority  when  he  pointed  out  the  accuracy  of  the 
writer's  account  of  the  storm  and  the  handling  of  the 
ship.  This  no  one  disputes  ;  and  the  historical 
character  of  the  '  We '  passages  of  the  Acts  is 
recognised  even  by  so  destructive  a  critic  as  Schmiedel. 
When  we  ask,  Who  wrote  this  journey  record  }  the 
names  of  Silas,  Timothy,  Titus  have  been  suggested, 
but  they  are  supported  by  no  ancient  authority,  nor 
are  they  in  themselves  more  likely  than  that  of  St. 
Luke.  Indeed,  St.  Luke's  claim  has  received  some- 
what special  corroboration  from  the  investigations  of 
Dr.  Hobart'^  and  others  who  have  found  traces  of 
medical  phraseology  in  these,  as  well  as  in  the  other 
parts  of  the  Acts,  which  would  be  natural  if  the  writer 
were  a  physician,  as  we  know  St.  Luke  to  have  been. 
We  take  St.  Luke,  then,  as  the  author  of  the 
'We'  passages  of  the  Acts,  and  in  so  doing  the  use 
of  the  first  person  plural  is  simply  explained.  But 
can  we  argue  from  these  passages  to  the  other  parts 
of  the  book }  May  it  not  be  that  the  author  of  the 
Acts  in  its  present  form  has  incorporated  an  authentic 

^Dr.  Breusing's  Die  Nautik  der  Alten  goes  over  the  same  ground, 
and  may  be  commended  to  those  who  can  read  German. 
-  The  Medical  Language  of  St.  Luke,  passim. 


UNITY    OF    THE    ACTS  221 

journey  record  into  his  narrative,  which,  as  a  whole, 
was  composed  at  a  later  date  ?  That  is  an  hypothesis 
which  cannot  be  dismissed  off  hand,  and  it  is  accepted 
by  a  good  many  scholars  in  Germany  and  a  few  in 
this  country.  But  the  more  carefully  the  language 
of  the  Acts  is  examined,  the  more  difficult  does  it 
seem  to  resist  the  prima  facie  case  for  the  unity  of  the 
whole  work  as  proceeding  from  one  author.  In  the 
first  lecture  of  this  series,^  Dr.  Sanday  referred  to 
the  careful  examination  of  the  vocabulary  made  by 
Sir  John  Hawkins,  and  to  the  argument  based  upon 
this,  which  has  convinced  him  and  others  that  the 
author  of  the  book  is  identical  with  the  writer  of  the 
*  We '  passages.  It  is  a  tenable  view  that  St.  Luke 
incorporated  in  his  work  with  alterations  and  additions 
a  diary  or  journal  in  which  he  himself  had  recorded 
the  events  of  which  he  was  an  eyewitness. 

I  have  spoken  of  the  similarity  of  style  throughout 
the  book,  but  we  must  be  careful  not  to  overstate 
our  case.  For  it  is  not  doubtful  that  there  are 
differences,  not  so  much  in  vocabulary  as  in  tone  and 
manner,  between  the  earlier  part  of  the  Acts  and 
the  latter,  and  these  differences  call  for  more  minute 
examination  than  they  have  hitherto  received. 
Roughly  speaking,  there  is  a  difference  between  the 
first  twelve  chapters  and  the  last  sixteen,  which  may 
be  accounted  for  partly  by  the  difference  of  subject 

1  P.  1 9  above. 


222     HISTORICAL    VALUE    OF    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES 

matter,  but  which  probably  points  also  to  a  difference 
in  the  sources  to  which  the  writer  had  access.  As 
we  pass  from  the  account  of  the  early  preaching  in 
Jerusalem,  and  the  period  of  transition  while  the 
Gospel  was  spreading  in  Judaea  and  Samaria,  to  the 
account  of  St.  Paul's  missionary  journeys  and  the 
extension  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  we  feel  that 
we  have  passed  from  Hebraism  to  Hellenism, 
from  the  Acts  of  Peter  to  the  Acts  of  Paul.  There 
is  a  change  of  atmosphere,  and  there  is  a  correspond- 
ing change  in  the  proportions  of  the  narrative,  which 
becomes  fuller  and  more  vivid  as  we  proceed.  That 
at  least  is  the  impression  which  is  left  on  my  own 
mind,  and  whether  it  be  well  founded  or  not  it 
suggests  questions  as  to  the  sources  of  St.  Luke's 
narrative,  which  must  be  briefly  mentioned. 

We  knov/  from  the  Preface  to  the  Third  Gospel, 
and  from  the  internal  evidence  of  composite  character 
which  it  displays,  that  St.  Luke  made  use  of  the 
ordinary  sources  of  information  which  a  historian 
employs.  It  has  been  pointed  out  in  a  former 
lecture,^  that  he  probably  used  two  documents  at  least 
as  a  basis  for  the  Gospel,  and  we  need  not  be  surprised, 
therefore,  if  we  find  that  he  used  documents  when 
compiling  the  Acts.  For  the  latter  part  of  the  Acts, 
cc.  xiii.-xxviii.,  there  is  not,  indeed,  much  evidence  of 
this,  save  in  the  case  of  the  journal  to  which  I  have 

^  P.  1 2  above. 


THE    PAULINE    SPEECHES  223 

already  referred.  No  doubt,  the  letter  conveying 
the  decision  of  the  Apostolic  Council  at  Jerusalem 
was  many  times  copied,  and  it  has  probably  been 
incorporated  in  its  integrity  in  chap.  xv.  So,  too,  it 
is  probable  that  the  letter  of  Claudius  Lysias  to 
Felix  (Ac.  xxiii.  26  fF.)  about  the  case  of  St.  Paul 
has  been  exactly  preserved.  But  in  other  parts  the 
later  chapters  of  the  Acts  do  not  suggest  the  use  of 
anything  like  a  previous  narrative.  The  intimacy  of 
St.  Luke  with  his  master  St.  Paul  gave  him  oppor- 
tunities for  gaining  information  at  first  hand  in 
respect  of  events  of  which  he  was  not  an  eye- 
witness. But  it  may  be  asked,  where  did  he  get  his 
report  of  St.  Paul's  speeches,  which  take  up  so  large 
a  part  of  the  book  ?  We  have  the  speech  at  Antioch 
in  Pisidia  (xiii.  16  ff.),  the  speech  at  Athens  (xvii. 
22  if.),  the  speech  at  Miletus  to  the  Ephesian  elders 
(xx.  18  fF.),  the  speech  in  Hebrew  from  the  barrack 
steps  at  Jerusalem  to  the  people  (xxii.  i  ff.),  the 
speech  before  Felix  (xxiv.  10  ff.),  and  that  before 
Agrippa  (xxvi.  2  ff.).  We  are  not  bound  to  suppose 
that  in  every  case  these  are  fully  recorded ;  it  is  more 
reasonable  to  hold  that  the  aim  of  the  writer  was 
to  give  the  substance  and  the  more  striking  phrases, 
but  not  to  reproduce  the  whole.  It  is  true  that  a 
kind  of  shorthand  was  in  fairly  common  use  at  this 
period,  and  that  a  formal  speech  like  the  apology 
before  Felix  might  naturally  have  been  taken  down 


224     HISTORICAL    VALUE    OF    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES 

by  an  official  reporter.  But  there  is  no  probability 
of  anything  of  the  kind  in  the  other  cases.  And  only 
one  of  the  speeches,  that  to  the  Ephesian  elders, 
occurs  in  the  "We"  sections,  so  that  we  must  suppose 
St.  Luke  to  have  had  recourse  to  the  recollections  of 
others  who  heard,  or  of  St.  Paul  himself  who  spoke. 
It  is,  then,  very  remarkable  to  find  that  analyses  of 
the  vocabulary  betray  an  unusual  Pauline  flavour. 
In  the  speech  at  Athens  some  specially  Pauline  words 
are  found ;  in  the  speech  at  Miletus  this  is  even  more 
marked;  while  in  the  apology  to  the  Jews,  which  was 
spoken  in  Hebrew,  while  the  thought  is  Pauline 
there  is  not  a  single  word  that  is  characteristic  of  St. 
Paul's  Greek  style.  Thus,  however  St.  Luke  gained 
his  information,  he  has  succeeded  in  reporting 
speeches  which  the  character  of  the  vocabulary  in 
every  case  shows  to  be  congruous  to  the  situation 
depicted.^ 

A  more  difficult  problem  remains,  viz.,  to  deter- 
mine the  nature  of  the  sources,  if  any,  from  which 
St.  Luke  derived  his  account  of  the  history  recorded 
in  the  first  twelve  chapters.  St.  Paul  may,  of 
course,  have  spoken  in  his  hearing  of  the  incidents  of 
his  own  conversion,  which  are,  however,  told  from  a 
somewhat  different  angle  in  his  speeches  in  cc.  xxii., 
xxvi.  And  it  has  been  suggested  that  while  St.  Luke 
was  at  Caesarea  (cc.  xxi,  7,  xxiv.-xxvi.)  he  may  have 
1  Comp.  Salmon,  Introduction  to  N.7\y  p.  316  ff". 


SOURCES    OF    THE    EARLY    CHAPTERS  225 

learnt  a  good  ,deal  from  Philip  the  Evangelist,  who 
lived  there,  of  the  early  fortunes  of  the  Church.  The 
story  of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  (in  c.  viii.),  and  the 
story  of  Cornelius  and  St.  Peter  (in  cc.  x.,  xi.)  might 
well  have  been  told  to  him  by  St.  Philip.  But  just 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Gospel  the  hypothesis  of  oral 
tradition  seems  insufficient  for  the  phenomena  it 
presents,  so  is  it  with  the  Acts.  Something  has  been 
already  said  of  the  difference  of  tone  and  accent 
in  the  earlier  and  later  chapters  of  the  Acts,  and 
it  seems  most  likely  that  this  difference  is  to  be 
accounted  for  by  presupposing  the  use,  for  the  early 
chapters,  of  some  primitive  records  of  the  Church 
at  Jerusalem.^  I  would  disclaim  any  sympathy  with 
elaborate  theories  of  dissection,  which  profess  to  dis- 
tinguish the  various  sources  employed  at  every  point. 
Clemen,  for  instance,  finds  four  sources  in  all,  viz.,  a 
History  of  the  Hellenists,  a  History  of  St.  Peter,  a 
History  of  St.  Paul,  and  the  Journal  containing  the 
'  We '  sections,  upon  which  he  supposes  three  editors 
in  succession  to  have  worked.  That  is  too  ingenious 
to  be  convincing,  and  I  do  not  dwell  upon  it.  But  to 
urge  that  we  may  distinguish  the  two  parts  of  the  book 
from  each  other,  the  one  being  Hebraic  and  the  other 
Hellenic  in  tone,  both  being  worked  over  with  skill 
and  judgment  by  St.  Luke,  is  much  more  plausible. 

1  Comp.  what  is  said  on  p.  i8  above  of  one  theory  as  to  the 

nature  of  the  "source"  for  Ac.  i.-xii. 

P 


226     HISTORICAL    VALUE    OF    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES 

Let  me  shortly  indicate  one  or  two  of  the  more 
conspicuous  features  of  these  early  chapters :  ^ 

{a)  The  language  used  in  the  speeches  of  St. 
Peter  about  our  Lord  is  quite  clearly  primitive,  and 
entirely  consonant  to  what  the  probabilities  of  the 
case  would  suggest.  The  Christology  of  these  early 
chapters  bases  itself  consistently  on  the  fulfilment  of 
prophecy.  Jesus  is  the  Christ  who  was  to  com^e,  as 
is  demonstrated  by  His  resurrection.  That  is  the 
burden  of  the  Apostolic  teaching.  *  Christ '  is  used 
as  a  title  rather  than  as  a  personal  name.  And  He 
is  called  the  'Servant  of  God'  (iii.  13,  26  ;  iv.  27, 
30),  a  phrase  which  we  meet  nowhere  else  in  the 
N.T.,  but  which  goes  back  to  the  prophecies  of  the 
later  Isaiah.  All  this  is  quite  unlike  St.  Paul's 
language,  although,  of  course,  it  is  entirely  har- 
monious with  it  in  substance.  The  Christianity  of 
these  early  chapters  is  Judaic  Christianity. 

(Z*)  So,  too,  is  the  Church  organisation  incomplete 
and  primitive.  Christianity  is  still  conceived  of  by 
the  first  disciples  as  a  reformed  Judaism  ;  the  temple 
services  and  the  synagogue  worship  are  still  thankfully 
and  habitually  used.  There  has  been  no  break  with 
Judaism,  such  as  came  at  a  later  time. 

(r)  The    actual    phraseology    of  the  speeches,   as 

^  Reference  may  now  be  made  to  the  very  full  and  clear  dis- 
cussion of  the  speeches  of  St.  Peter,  provided  by  Dr.  Chase  in  his 
third  Hulsean  Lecture. 


UNDERLYING    SEMITIC    DOCUMENT  227 

well  as  of  the  narrative  sections,  seems  to  betray  a 
Hebrew  or  an  Aramaic  base.  We  have  to  reckon, 
indeed,  with  the  possibility  that  the  Semitic  turns  of 
phrase  which  met  us  here  are  due,  not  to  an  under- 
lying document,  but  to  the  form  which,  at  a  very 
early  period,  the  Christian  tradition  assumed  in 
oral  teaching.  Dalman,  who  has  special  claims  to 
be  heard  on  such  a  point,  warns  us  that  "  it  is 
thus  possible  that  the  oldest  Christian  writing  may 
have  been  composed  in  Greek  ;  and  its  Semitisms, 
so  far  as  they  are  Biblicisms,  are  in  that  case  due 
to  the  Aramaic  oral  archetype  of  the  Christian 
tradition."  1  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  we  cannot 
yet  speak  with  absolute  confidence  as  to  the  inferences 
to  be  derived  from  the  Semitisms  of  the  early  chapters 
of  Acts  ;  but  it  is  equally  clear  that,  however  we  are 
to  explain  them,  they  are  more  conspicuously  present 
in  the  text  than  is  the  case  in  the  later  chapters  of 
the  same  book.  I  may  be  permitted  to  express  my 
own  belief  that  the  hypothesis  of  an  underlying 
Semitic  document  affords  at  once  the  readiest  and 
the  most  complete  explanation  of  the  facts. 

These  features  of  the  early  chapters  show  at  any 
rate  that  we  have  in  the  writer  of  the  Acts  a  man  who 
had  access  to  excellent  sources  of  information,  and  was, 
moreover,  endowed  with  a  quite  extraordinary  sense 
of  historical  perspective.  There  are  no  anachronisms 
^Dalman,  The  Words  of  Jesus  (Engl.  Tr.),  p.  71. 


228     HISTORICAL    VALUE    OF    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES 

that  we  can  detect.  And  this  is  the  more  remarkable 
when  we  find  that  many  popular  manuals  of  early 
Jewish  Christianity,  which  are  published  at  the 
present  day,  betray  a  lack  of  this  historical  sense  of 
growth  and  proportion  which  the  writer  of  the  Acts  so 
perfectly  displays. 

But,  supposing  that  St.  Luke  had  access  to  some 
primitive  records  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  how 
did  he  use  them  ?  Did  he  incorporate  them  bodily 
into  his  work,  or  did  he  only  use  them  for  facts,  and 
not  at  all  for  phrases  ?  Did  he  combine  information 
derived  from  different  sources  ?  or  did  he  copy  with- 
out alteration  what  lay  before  him  ?  These  questions — 
or  some  of  them — cannot  be  answered  with  confidence 
until  the  researches  which  are  being  pursued  as  to 
the  structure  of  the  third  gospel  are  much  further 
advanced.  When  we  know  how  and  with  what 
freedom  St.  Luke  used  his  documentary  materials  for 
his  former  treatise  we  shall  be  in  a  better  position  for 
forming  an  opinion  about  his  later  treatise.  It  has 
been  suggested  that  in  compiling  his  gospel  St.  Luke's 
habit  was  to  take  sections  of  considerable  length,  now 
from  one  source,  now  from  another,  and  to  piece  them 
together.  If  this  were  so  with  the  Gospel  it  may  have 
been  so  with  the  Acts.  But  in  any  case  it  is  quite  certain 
that  St.  Luke  edited  his  materials.  He  worked  them 
over,  he  introduced  his  own  favourite  words  and  turns 
of  phrase,  and  thus  imparted  to  his  work  a  unity  which 


PLAN    OF    THE    ACTS  229 

a  product  of  scissors  and  paste  could  never  possess. 
We  must  not  lose  sight  of  this.  It  was  not  without 
reason  that  Renan  called  the  third  gospel  '  the  most 
beautiful  book  in  the  world.'  ^  For  St.  Luke  has  the 
characteristics  of  a  really  good  writer.  He  has 
remarkable  command  of  words,  and  he  has — what  is 
less  common — tact  and  taste  in  the  selection  of  the 
incidents  which  he  embodies  in  his  narratives.  He  is 
not  a  mere  chronicler,  but  a  historian  who  writes  with 
a  plan  and  a  purpose.  That  plan  in  the  Acts  is  not 
so  crude  as  those  think  who  have  persuaded  them- 
selves that  the  main  object  of  the  writer  is  to  draw  out 
a  parallel  between  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.  Remarkable 
parallels  may  be  traced,  without  doubt,  between  the 
careers  of  these  two  great  Apostles,  as  recorded  in 
the  Acts  ;  but  they  are  not  more  numerous  or 
more  striking  than  might  be  anticipated  between  the 
careers  of  any  two  men  trying  to  do  the  same  work 
under  somewhat  similar  circumstances.  With  much 
more  truth — though  it  would  not  be  the  whole 
truth — might  it  be  said  that  St.  Luke  aims  at  tracing 
the  progress  of  the  Gospel  from  Jerusalem  outward, 
until  it  reaches  Rome,  and  that  his  '  tendency  ' — if  he 
has  a  tendency — is  to  justify  to  Jew  and  Greek  the 
Gentile  Christianity  which  gradually  but  surely  re- 
placed the  Jewish  Christianity  of  early  days.  We  do 
not  know  with  certainty  the  date  of  the  composition 

^  Les  Evangilesy  p.  283. 


230    HISTORICAL    VALUE    OF    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES 

of  the  Acts  ;  some  writers  of  repute  place  it  before 
the  year  70.  I  should  not  care  to  express  an  opinion 
with  full  confidence  ;  but  I  am  disposed  rather  to 
agree  with  those  (je.g.  Harnack  and  Sanday)  who  think 
that  both  Gospel  and  Acts  were  written  after  the  Fall 
of  Jerusalem  ;  and  that  thus  we  may  reckon  the  Acts 
to  have  been  published  about  a.d.  80.  Jerusalem 
had  fallen  ;  the  hopes  of  Judaism  were  shattered. 
But  a  new  hope  had  arisen  for  the  world ;  and  the 
last  verse  of  the  Acts  looks  out  with  something  of 
joyous  expectation  to  the  future  of  the  Church.  It 
leaves  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  the  champion  of 
freedom  at  Rome,  "  preaching  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  teaching  those  things  which  concern  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  all  confidence,  no  man  for- 
bidding him  "  (Ac.  xxviii.  36). 


GLASGOW  :     PRINTED    AT   THE   UNIVERSITY  PRESS    BY   ROBERT    MACLEHOSE   AND    CO. 


Date  Due 


fkW 


API-  '43 


,ra  5-  'c;-^ 


lit, 


